environmental management plan - adb

Environmental Management Plan Project Number: 42916-014 March 2019

INO: Sarulla Geothermal Power Generation Project

Prepared by Sarulla Operations Limited

The environmental management plan is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein

do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may

be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “Terms of Use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation

of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian

Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any

territory or area

Sarulla Geothermal Power Project

Biodiversity Action Plan

28 March 2019

401814 3 K Mott MacDonald

Mott MacDonald 152 Beach Road #35-00 Gateway East, 189721 Singapore T +65 6293 1900 F +65 6293 1911 mottmac.com

Sarulla Geothermal Power Project

Biodiversity Action Plan

28 March 2019

Mott MacDonald Singapore Pte Limited is a subsidiary of Mott MacDonald International Limited. Registration no. 197302421K

Mott MacDonald | Sarulla Geothermal Power Project Biodiversity Action Plan

401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 27/11/2013

Iain Bray Poppy McDonald

Neil MacDonald

Draft for client review

B 29/11/2013


Neil MacDonald

Updated with clarifications

C 03/01/2014


Neil MacDonald

Updated baseline section and CHA

D 06/02/2014

Iain Bray Mihai Coroi Neil MacDonald

Updated CHA, report layout and BAP

E 11/07/2014

Iain Bray Mihai Coroi Euan Low Revised CHA, updated biodiversity baseline, updated BAP actions

F 29/01/2015

Francesco Ricciardi

Mihai Coroi Kirsty Haymon

Updated with information from the latest biodiversity monitoring reports and comments by SOL

G 17/12/2018

J. Kee S. Arora B. Lim Update to address Lender comments in accordance with the BOMP ESAP

H 15/01/2019

J. Kee

S. Arora

I. Bray B. Lim Document to include new section 10 on biodiversity no net loss/gain. Updated details pertaining to hunting and poaching in Action 6. Action 10 has been updated with description of habitat hectare and species-focussed metrics.

I 8/02/2019

J.Kee I.Bray B.Lim Update to address Lender comments

J 28/02/2019

J.Kee B.Lim B.Lim Updated to address Lender comments

K 28/03/2019

J.Kee B.Lim B.Lim Updated to address Lender comments

Document reference: 401814 | 3 | K

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-

captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being

used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied

to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other

parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This report has been pr epared sol el y for use by the party which commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expressl y agreed ter ms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rel y on the content, i nformati on or any vi ews expressed i n the repor t. We accept no duty of care, responsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s document. This r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etar y intell ectual property.

s incl udi ng the client (‘D ata’). We have not i ndependentl y verified such D ata and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, r


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Contents

Executive summary 1

Abbreviations 6

1 Introduction 7

1.1 Sarulla geothermal power project 7

1.1.1 Overview 7

1.1.2 Project description 7

1.2 Purpose of the BAP 7

2 Scope of the BAP 10

2.1 Aims and objectives of the BAP 10

2.2 Formulation of the Project BAP 11

2.3 Consultation with stakeholders and biodiversity experts 12

2.3.1 Overview 12

2.3.2 Key stakeholders 12

2.4 Project area 13

3 Legal, regulatory, planning and third-party requirements 14

3.1 Legal and regulatory requirements 14

3.1.1 International legislation and policy 14

3.1.2 National legislation and policy framework 14

3.2 Planning and permitting requirements 14

3.2.1 Environmental and social impact assessment 14

3.3 Third party requirements 18

3.3.1 Overview 18

3.3.2 International Finance Corporation (IFC) standards and guidance 18

3.3.3 Asian Development Bank (ADB) standards 18

4 Biodiversity baseline 21

4.1 General approach and methodology 21

4.1.1 Desktop study 21

4.1.2 Field surveys 21

4.1.3 Protection and nature conservation areas 25

4.1.4 Key biodiversity areas 27

4.2 Habitats of conservation value 27

4.3 Flora of conservation value 29

4.4 Mammals of conservation value 29

4.5 Birds of conservation value 31

4.6 Amphibians and reptiles of conservation value 32


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

5 Critical habitat 34

5.1 Overview 34

5.2 Identified critical habitats 34

5.3 Project impacts on critical habitats triggers 37

6 Priorities for biodiversity conservation 40

6.1 Selection criteria 40

6.2 Priority Habitats and Species 40

6.2.1 Habitats 40

6.2.2 Species 40

7 BAP actions 42

7.1 Overview 42

7.2 BAP actions 42

8 Biodiversity No Net Loss/Net Gain 59

9 Biodiversity monitoring and evaluation program 74

9.1 Overview 74

9.2 Short-term monitoring 74

9.3 Long-term monitoring 75

9.4 Evaluation program 80

10 Principle project staff and summary of key actions 82

10.1 Responsibilities 82

10.1.1 External ecological/social consultant 82

10.1.2 Biodiversity consultants/NGOs 82

10.1.3 SOL site construction manager 82

10.1.4 SOL health, safety and environment manager 82

10.2 Summary of key associated documents 82

11 References 84

Appendices 89

A. Critical Habitat Assessment 90

B. Biodiversity monitoring report 91

C. Rewards and Punishment Procedure of BAP Implementation 92


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

D. Biodiversity socialisation programme and delivery report 93

E. Rapid assessment of bird, reptile/amphibian and floral diversity 94

F. LiDAR 95

G. Pre-clearing survey report 96

H. Sample of daily patrolling report 97

I. Letter to police regarding illegal loggin onsite 98

J. Method statement for methodical site vegetation clearance 99

K. Habitat hectare breakdown per species 100

L. Number of Dark red meranti removed from Project during land-clearing 101

Mott MacDonald | Sarulla Geothermal Power Project 1 Biodiversity Action Plan

401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Executive summary

In November 2013, Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Sarulla Operations Ltd (SOL) to

prepare and coordinate the implementation of a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and Biodiversity

Offset and Management Plan (BOMP) at the Sarulla geothermal field in the Pahae Julu and

Pahae Jae districts, North Tapanuli Regency, Sumatra. This document is an updated BAP,

which incorporates the outcomes of a revised critical habitat assessment (CHA) produced in

2018 to account for changes in conservation status of some species, the discovery of a

genetically distinct orangutan species within the Project vicinity, and the progression of the

Project status from construction to operation.

The aim of the BAP/BOMP is to ensure that the Project implements the mitigation hierarchy

presented in the ESIA; complies with national legislation/policy requirements; and complies with

international environmental requirements and best practice, including the Asian Development

Bank (ADB) Safeguards Policy Statement 2009, International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Performance Standard 6 (PS6), and the Equator Principles. The overall goal is to achieve a net

gain for triggers of Critical Habitat as defined by the IFC PS6 assessment process as well as no

net loss of natural habitats.

Baseline ecological conditions were established through a desk study and targeted biodiversity

surveys undertaken in 2013 and 2014. The findings found the Project is not located in any

national protected areas for conservation; however, the Batang Toru Forest, in which the Project

is partially situated, is recognised as a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA). The Project is located

predominantly within areas of low conservation value (for example agricultural land); however

the Namora I Langit (NIL) Project Area is partially situated within approximately 69ha of

contiguous forest which is considered to be of medium and high conservation value. The

biodiversity surveys found evidence of species of conservation value within the Project’s area of influence (AoI) comprising six species of mammals, three reptiles/amphibians, one bird and two

plants categorised as either endemic and/or threatened on the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List including four critically endangered (CR) and four

endangered species (EN).

A full CHA was undertaken by Mott MacDonald in June 2014 following IFC PS6 criteria. The

western block of the Batang Toru Forest (WBTFB) was established as the Discreet

Management Unit (DMU) comprising the NIL Project Area. The CHA was updated in 2018,

primarily to address the discovery of the Tapanuli orangutan, which was newly described as a

genetically distinct species from Sumatran orangutan in 2017. The Project was found to trigger

critical habitat for the following categories: the presence of critically endangered and

endangered species; the presence of endemic species; situated within a highly threatened

ecosystem; situated within an ecosystem which supports key evolutionary processes; and

situated within an internationally recognised area.

The forest within the NIL Project Area has been identified as a priority within the BAP as well as

species of conservation importance including the following which trigger critical habitat

requirements:

● Mammals:

– Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) (CR)

– Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) (CR)

– Agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) (EN)


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

– Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) (EN)

– Mitred leaf monkey (Presbytis melanophos) (EN)

– Malayan pangolin (Manis javanica) (CR)

● Amphibians and reptiles:

– False file-eared treefrog (Polypedates pseudotilophus) (endemic to Sumatra)

– Wegner's glass lizard (Ophisaurus wegneri) (endemic to Sumatra)

– Hayek's slender agama (Bronchocela hayeki) (endemic to Sumatra)

● Birds

– Helmeted hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil) (CR)

● Plants:

– Dark red meranti (Shorea platyclados) (EN)

– Pitcher plant (Nephentes tobaica) (endemic to Sumatra)

In addition, other priority species for which no net loss of biodiversity is required includes 12

other mammal species and 13 bird species.

A total of twelve actions (as summarised in Table 1 below) have been outlined as per the

mitigation hierarchy (ie avoid, reduce, remedy and offset) in order to achieve no net loss to

biodiversity and a net gain in critical habitats in accordance with IFC PS6 and ADB lender

requirements. These actions include: future short-term and long-term biodiversity monitoring

evaluation; biodiversity offsetting of the habitats permanently lost within the forest boundary;

and socialisation programmes to engage with local communities.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Table 1: Summary of the actions proposed

Action Responsibilities Timing of implementation

BAP 1: Inform construction and operation staff (including contractors) on the habitats of conservation value and protected and threatened plant and animal species; enforcement of no hunting or logging policy by SOL staff or contractors

HSE Manager. Delivery HSE Manager, external ecological and social consultants and NGOs.

● Commence: January 2014.

● Rewards and Punishment Procedure of BAP implementation document produced in 2014

● Current status: Implemented and ongoing.

BAP 2a: Conduct further biodiversity surveys for mammals of conservation value.

External ecological consultant (coordination), NGOs/biodiversity experts (surveys).

● Commence: November 2013 for NIL1n and June 2014 for WJP1.

● Current status: Completed in June 2014 and annually thereafter during construction and post-construction. Short-term biodiversity monitoring will be completed before the end of 2019. Long-term biodiversity monitoring will be undertaken in Year 5 (2021) and Year 8 (2024) of post-construction and subsequently in Year 13 (2029), Year 18 (2034) and Year 23 (2039)

● The helmeted hornbill has been added into the 2018 CHA due to change in conservation status from near threatened to critically endangered as of 2016.

● The Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) population living in the Batang Toru has been reclassified as the Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) which was described as a new species in 2018. Change from Tier 2 to Tier 1 under criterion C1 as reflected in the CHA.

BAP 2b: Conduct further biodiversity surveys for plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds of conservation value (updated with the findings from the latest surveys)


● Commence: September 2014

● Current status: First report submitted in 2014. Second survey conducted during post-construction in 2018, report pending.

● No additional critical habitat trigger species found as of survey conducted in 2014, however the conservation status of some bird species has been revised by the IUCN since 2014.

BAP 2c: Prepare a detailed map of habitats of conservation value

External ecological consultant and NGO (initial mapping and pre-construction biodiversity surveys); SOL/HSE manager to coordinate post-construction administration of mapping updates and GIS database.

● Commence: November 2013

● Completed: GIS database updated, and LIDAR analysis conducted in 2016

● Drone data surveys completed in November 2013 and are included in the Biodiversity Monitoring Report

● Satellite mapping purchased, and mapping completed in December 2013

● A LIDAR study mapping out habitats surrounding the Project area was produced in 2016

● Additional ground survey conducted in 2016. A habitat monitoring report: comparing field survey and LiDAR data was produced in 2017

● Up to date satellite imagery was purchased in January 2018 and has been used to produce maps in this BAP and associated documents.

BAP 3: Socialisation programme with local villages to promote awareness of importance of habitats and plant species of conservation value

HSE Manager, external social consultant. ● Commence: June 2014

● The Socialisation Programme was designed and delivered to the local communities in order to raise awareness.



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


BAP 4: Undertake habitat restoration within laydown, and former production well areas

SOL, external ecological consultant. ● Commence: 2019

● Current status: Latest version of On-site forest restoration plan (OnFRP, Rev G) submitted in January 2019. Restoration will commence in 2019 in accordance with the plan.

BAP 5: Clear demarcation of areas to be cleared during construction

HSE Manager ● Commenced and completed in August 2014.

● No further pending clearance/construction of wellpads planned at the time of writing.

BAP 6: Prevent and reduce hunting and logging in areas opened up through the creation of new or improved access roads.

Construction Manager ● Commence: July 2014

● Site Access Plan (Mott MacDonald, 2014) prepared and being implemented. Access Control Procedure (SOL, 2018) prepared and implemented in 2018.

● Guard houses and gantries for all access roads were completed: WJP in 2017, NIL1, NIL2 and NIL Main access post in 2018

BAP 7: Prevent and reduce mortality of wildlife from collision from vehicles

HSE Manager Ongoing: speed limitation measures (erection of speed limit signs (30km/hr) across entire Project site) are being implemented.

BAP 8: Light control within Project Area to minimise disturbance to forest species

External ecological consultant Implemented as far as possible. In some areas it was not possible to limit construction works by night. No further construction pending, and the Project is now operational.

BAP 9: Methodical clearance of forested areas under ecological supervision

External ecological consultant ● Method statement produced for methodical site vegetation clearance in January 2014 and implemented for WJP1 site. Last site clearance conducted in January 2015. No additional site clearance proposed at the time of writing.

● External ecologist working on-site and producing monitoring reports. Large trees like the Dark Red Meranti was monitored by an ecologist and the number and location of these trees, was reported.

BAP 10: Forest recreation outside of Project Area to offset critical and natural habitats affected by the construction of the NIL geothermal field.

NGOs, Ministry of Forestry ● Preliminary biodiversity offset management plan (BOMP) (initial options appraisal) prepared in September 2018.

● Final BOMP to be submitted mid-2019. Implementation to commence in 2019.

BAP 11: Create primate crossing points on site access roads to ensure connectivity for arboreal mammals

External ecological consultant ● Completed in 2018. Primate crossing designed and installed across access road at WJP1.

● Primate crossing considered a success. Camera traps installed captured mitred leaf monkeys using the crossing.

● Inspections scheduled every six months.

BAP 12: Prepare a long-term monitoring plan for species/habitats of High Conservation Value

External ecological consultant ● Long-term monitoring plan to be prepared by 2020 by an external ecological consultant

● Surveys to be conducted for a minimum period of twenty years. Year 5 (2021), Year 8 (2024), Year 13 (2029) Year 18 (2034) and Year 23 (2039) of post-construction

● Monitoring requirements in the BAP, OnFRP and BOMP are to be included in the long-term monitoring plan as well as assessment of No Net Loss in biodiversity


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Source: Mott MacDonald


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Abbreviations

Table 2: Abbreviations

Acronym Full name

ADB Asian Development Bank

ANB Australia National Bank

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BOMP Biodiversity Offset Management Plan

BTFE Batang Toru Forest Ecosystem

CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

CHA Critical Habitat Assessment

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

DMU Discrete Management Unit

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

GIS Geographical Information System

IFC International Finance Corporation

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

NIL Namora I Langit

PS6 IFC’s Performance Standard 6

SIL Silangkitang

SOL Sarulla Operations Ltd

SOCP Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program

WBTFB Western Batang Toru Forest Block

YEL Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari

ZoI Zone of Influence



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

1 Introduction

1.1 Sarulla geothermal power project

1.1.1 Overview

In November 2013, Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Sarulla Operations Ltd (SOL) to

prepare and coordinate the implementation of a biodiversity action plan (BAP) at the Sarulla

geothermal field in the Pahae Jae and Pahae Julu districts, North Tapanuli Regency, Sumatra.

The BAP1 was produced in 2015, with the propose of this current 2018 update being to:

● Update the conservation status of priority species where applicable

● Update the calculated Project footprint area (as based on final construction design and

layout)

● Incorporate additional operation phase actions where necessary

● Integrate the outcomes of the revised 2018 critical habitat assessment (CHA) (Mott

MacDonald, 2018c)

1.1.2 Project description

The Project comprises the development of two geothermal fields within the Sarulla valley:

Silangkitang (SIL) and Namora I Langit (NIL). Each geothermal field comprises geothermal

production and reinjection wells as well as power plants (one 110MW unit at SIL and two

110MW units at NIL). The two geothermal fields are connected via an approximate 14km high

voltage overhead transmission line.

Construction of the Sarulla geothermal power project commenced in 2013 and the SIL unit

achieved commercial operation date (COD) in March 2017, with NIL-1 unit achieving COD in

October 2017 and the NIL-2 unit achieving COD in May 2018.

The location of the Project is shown in Figure 1 below and a full description of the Project is

given in Chapter 1 of Volume II: Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment (ESIA)

Addendum prepared by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) for SOL in October

2013 (SOL, 2013).

1.2 Purpose of the BAP

A BAP is a plan which includes a set of actions that lead to the conservation or enhancement of

biodiversity for a specific site or project. Specifically, the BAP is needed to ensure that the

Project:

● Implements the mitigation hierarchy presented in the ESIA

● Complies with national legislation/policy requirements

● Complies with international environmental requirements and best practice, including the

Asian Development Bank (ADB) Safeguards Policy Statement 2009, International Finance

Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 (PS6), and the Equator Principles.

1 As of Rev G of this report, the term “BAP” shall replace “BAP/BOEMP”, as mentioned in preceding revisions of this report


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Figure 1: Sarulla geothermal field: location of project infrastructure

Source: Mot MacDonald


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

2 Scope of the BAP

2.1 Aims and objectives of the BAP

The aim of the BAP is to achieve a net gain for triggers of critical habitat as defined by the IFC

PS6 assessment process as well as no net loss of natural habitats. This will be achieved by

ensuring that the biodiversity is protected and enhanced where possible. The BAP has been

developed in consultation with stakeholders and biodiversity experts.

The objectives of the BAP are to:

● Review existing biodiversity baseline information for the area identified by ERM within the

ESIA as potential critical habitat (‘Project Area’) (see section 2.4) and to undertake further detailed biodiversity monitoring surveys

● Undertake a critical habitat assessment (CHA) as required following consultation with

lenders and with additional biodiversity data obtained through the detailed biodiversity

surveys

● Implement a consultation process with relevant stakeholders and biodiversity experts to

inform priorities and actions for biodiversity conservation

● Identify priorities and actions for biodiversity conservation, in consultation with stakeholders

and biodiversity experts

● Determine actions to be undertaken within an onsite forest restoration plan (OnFRP) and

biodiversity offset management plan (BOMP) to benefit biodiversity

● Establish a monitoring and evaluation programme for biodiversity allowing for the success of

the BAP interventions to be assessed.

This BAP includes short to long-term biodiversity conservation actions linked to the construction

and operation activities of the Project. The on- and off-site mitigation measures for habitat

restoration and recreation will be implemented through the OnFRP and BOMP, which are

standalone plans produced by Mott MacDonald.

The biodiversity baseline, conservation actions and mitigation in this BAP supplement and

update the information in the ESIA. This latter document also includes actions required under an

environmental and social management plan (ESMP) which covers environmental measures that

are relevant to the protection of biodiversity.

Additional conservation opportunities/actions have also been identified during the BAP process,

following a review of the Project and consultation with the site team and local conservation non-

governmental organisations (NGOs).

The conservation objectives and actions in this BAP have been developed to ensure the

systematic implementation of the mitigation hierarchy ie avoid, reduce (minimise), remedy

(restore) and offset. The concept of the mitigation hierarchy is outlined in Figure 2. This will

allow for the careful management of risk and the best possible outcomes for the Project and

local communities, without compromising the health, function and integrity of the ecological

system.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Figure 2: Mitigation hierarchy


The conservation actions have been established with the aim of achieving ‘net gain’ for triggers of critical habitat and ‘no let loss’ for natural habitat other species in accordance with IFC PS6

(IFC, 2012a, 2012b). IFC PS6 requires evidence that the mitigation hierarchy has been applied,

that avoidance is prioritised, and that offsets are measurable and only applied as a last resort

where residual impacts are unavoidable.

2.2 Formulation of the Project BAP

The development of the BAP follows the IFC Guidance Note 6 (IFC, 2012b) and the guidance

published by the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association

(IPIECA, 2005)2.

It is important to recognise that a BAP is not just the production of a single document which

details what actions are needed for the conservation and management of biodiversity. A BAP is

a process from which a document is formulated through the review of previous studies and from

consultation with local stakeholders. The ESIA is part of this process in that the ecological

assessments of the ESIA provide the baseline upon which the BAP objectives and conservation

priorities are based. In accordance with IPIECA guidance (2005) best practice, a BAP should

include eight specific tasks:

● Task 1: Determination of the legal, regulatory, planning, permitting & third-party requirements

● Task 2: Desktop assessment of the project

● Task 3: Baseline survey of the biodiversity

2 The IPIECA guidance is for the oil and gas industry but is relevant to many other project types, including geothermal projects.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

● Task 4: Biodiversity impact assessment

● Task 5: Preparation of the BAP

– Task 5.1 Establishment of priorities for conservation

– Task 5.2 Identification of conservation actions

● Task 6: Implementation of the BAP

● Task 7: Monitoring, evaluation and improvement

● Task 8: Reporting, communication and verification of BAP performance

Tasks 1 to 4 were addressed as part of the ESIA. However, supplementary biodiversity surveys

were conducted as part of the BAP in order to provide further data where gaps were identified

for species of high conservation value. This included surveys within the habitats identified as

‘Potential Critical Habitat’ in the ESIA (SOL, 2013), as well as other areas of forest within the wider area around the NIL geothermal field.

2.3 Consultation with stakeholders and biodiversity experts

2.3.1 Overview

Stakeholder consultation is an integral component in the formulation of a BAP. It is essential to

engage with stakeholders to gather opinions on how to complement and coordinate actions. A

number of stakeholders were consulted as part of the ESIA (SOL, 2013) (see Chapter 4 of the

document for details). Additional consultation was undertaken for the BAP to:

● Update the biodiversity baseline (and likely impacts if required)

● Identify the priorities for biodiversity conservation and develop the conservation actions

2.3.2 Key stakeholders

There are two types of stakeholders for the BAP: those who need to know about the BAP and

those from whom the BAP requires information. Table 3 below provides a summary of the

stakeholders consulted as part of the ESIA and those who have been consulted as part of the

BAP.

The BAP was circulated to the key stakeholders and their comments incorporated. Stakeholders

who need to know about the BAP were communicated with via appropriate means (for example

through training or socialisation programmes).

Table 3: List of stakeholders consulted for the ESIA and BAP

Stakeholders Method of engagement for the BAP

Consulted for ESIA?

SOL

Site management Meetings/workshop Yes

Site workers and contractors Induction and training Not required

Local communities and villages

Residents of the local villages within the Sarulla Valley adjacent to the Project

Socialisation programme Yes

Local government departments

Representatives of local government sub-district and regency Socialisation programme; meeting/workshop

Yes

National government departments and ministries

Representatives of national governments Not considered necessary Yes (full details not


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Stakeholders Method of engagement for the BAP

Consulted for ESIA?

disclosed in ESIA)

International, National and Local NGOs

PanEco-SOCP-YEL Expert advice and biodiversity surveys; socialisation programme

Yes

Other NGOs (including Fauna and Flora International; Conservation International)

Non-direct communication (email/phone etc.); direct communication (meeting/workshop)

Yes (full details not disclosed in ESIA)


2.4 Project area

The geographical scope of the BAP encompasses the western block of the Batang Toru forest

(WBTFB) (see Figure 3), which represents the Discrete Management Unit (DMU), in line with

IFC Guidance Note 6 (IFC, 2012b). The area studied for the further biodiversity surveys and

monitoring (the ‘Project Area’) comprises the forest around the NIL geothermal field only, up to

2km from Project infrastructure. Further details are given in the CHA, which is appended to this

document in Appendix A.

The study area for the socialisation programme comprises ten villages, totalling approximately

6,200 people close to the Project (both SIL and NIL, as well as the along the route of the

overhead transmission line).

Figure 3: Location of Batang Toru Forest

Source: PanEco/SOCP/YEL (http://en.batangtoru.org)

NIL Project SIL Project

http://en.batangtoru.org/


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

3 Legal, regulatory, planning and third-

party requirements

3.1 Legal and regulatory requirements

3.1.1 International legislation and policy

The following international laws and conventions have been ratified by Indonesia and are of

relevance to this Project:

● Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973)

● United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change

● UN (Rio) Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

3.1.2 National legislation and policy framework

Indonesia’s Environmental Law requires a project proponent to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan or AMDAL) where it is considered

that the project has the potential to result in potential significant environmental or social impacts.

Further details are given in Section 1.6.1.1 of the ESIA.

National Legislation in relation to biodiversity is covered specifically under the following key laws

and regulation:

● Law No. 5 of 1990 regarding the Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystems

– Outlines the importance of preserving plant and animal diversity and their ecosystems

and sustainably using natural resources

– Regulates the participation of the people in the conservation of biological resources and

ecosystems

● Law No. 19 of 2004 regarding Forestry

– Regulates the management and conservation of forests

– Categorise forests into: Conservation, Protection, and Production

● Government Regulation 7 of 1999 regarding Conservation of Plants and Animals

– A species of plants and animals must be protected if: it has a small population; there is a

sharp decrease in the number of individuals in the wild; limited distribution range

(endemic).

– For those species of plants and animals which fulfil the criteria referred to in paragraph

(1) there is need to conservation efforts

3.2 Planning and permitting requirements

3.2.1 Environmental and social impact assessment

A detailed ecological impact assessment was completed for the Project as part of the ESIA

(SOL, 2013). This document identified a number of mitigation and compensation measures

which were necessary to ensure that there would be no net loss in biodiversity. This included

the creation of a BAP and BOMP in order to ensure that mitigation and compensation measures


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

are fully and properly implemented, with stakeholder consultation, to meet conservation goals

and objectives.

Additional targeted biodiversity surveys were also undertaken by PanEco-Sumatran Orangutan

Conservation Program (SOCP)-Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL) between 16 and 22

November 2013 and in June and September 2014 in order to further support and refine the

impact assessment where necessary (see Section 4).

The BAP and BOMP supplement and update the information included in the ESIA to reflect the

refinement and development of the Project design, the additional biodiversity baseline

information collected since September 2013, and to include further assessment, mitigation and

conservation actions, where necessary, to comply with IFC PS6 (IFC, 2012a, 2012b).

Table 4 below summarises the likely significant direct and indirect impacts of the Project as

identified in the ESIA (SOL, 2013) and as a result of the additional biodiversity surveys. The

majority of the new construction undertaken by SOL in the NIL area is within the contiguous

forest boundary of the WBTFB, with only a small portion developed outside the forest on

previously cleared or agricultural land. Conversely, the SIL area has been developed outside of

the forest boundary of both the WBTFB and the adjacent Eastern Batang Toru Forest Block

(EBTFB). Following the ESIA (SOL, 2013) it was determined that significant impacts on

biodiversity will occur within the forest habitats only (ie no adverse impacts were identified in the

SIL area) and therefore only the NIL Project area is considered within this BAP; specifically

habitats within the contiguous boundary of the WBTFB which have been identified as supporting

the presence of critical habitat triggers (as described within the CHA, Appendix A). The table

presents sensitive habitats and protected species that have been identified or are known to

likely occur within the wider NIL Project Area, which may be affected by the Project and the

types of impacts that may occur.

The Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) previously listed in the BAP has now been recognised

to be Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) as based on the updated information provided

in the IUCN red list. The Tapanuli orangutan was described as a distinct species from the

Sumatran orangutan in 2017 and are known to occur within the Batang Toru region but are not

found within other areas in Sumatra.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Table 4: Summary of key likely significant impacts on ecological features during construction (C) and operation (O) activities

Features identified in the ESIA and biodiversity surveys

Permanent habitat loss (construction site/infrastructure)

Temporary habitat loss (road access, work compounds)

Noise/light disturbance

Increased human pressure (logging/hunting)

Collision with vehicles/disturbance

Physical barriers to movement

Habitats of high conservation value (see Table 6)

Primary/old secondary rainforest

C C - C,O - -

Kayu arang (heath) forest

C C - C,O - -

Mixed agroforest C C - C,O - -

Volcanic stone forest C C - C,O - -

Protected and notable plant species

Pitcher plant (Nepenthes tobaica)

C C - C,O - -

Dark red meranti (Shorea platyclados)

C C - C,O - -

Protected and notable animal species

Mammals

Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Malayan pangolin (Manis javanica)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Mitred leaf monkey (Presbytis melanophos)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Asian tapir (Tapirus indicus)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus)

C C C,O C,O C,O -


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Features identified in the ESIA and biodiversity surveys

Permanent habitat loss (construction site/infrastructure)

Temporary habitat loss (road access, work compounds)

Noise/light disturbance

Increased human pressure (logging/hunting)

Collision with vehicles/disturbance

Physical barriers to movement

Binturong (Arctictis binturong)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Sumatran serow (Capricornis sumatrensis)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Whitehead’s spiny rat (Maxomys whiteheadi)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Slow loris (Nycticebus coucang)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Birds

Bronze-tailed peacock-pheasant (Polyplectron chalcurum)

C C C,O C,O C,O -

Amphibians

False file-eared treefrog (Polypedates pseudotilophus)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Reptiles

Wegner's glass lizard (Ophisaurus wegneri)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Hayek's slender agama (Bronchocela hayeki)

C C C,O C,O C,O C,O

Source: Mott MacDonald, adapted from the ESIA (SOL, 2013) and additional PanEco-SOCP-YEL surveys


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

3.3 Third party requirements

3.3.1 Overview

The Project is required to meet the international standards of the IFC, which is part of the World

Bank Group, and those of the ADB. The international environmental and social safeguard

policies of these organisations relevant to biodiversity are outlined below.

3.3.2 International Finance Corporation (IFC) standards and guidance

The IFC PS6 (IFC, 2012a) and Guidance Note 6 (IFC, 2012b) has been used on the Project as

best practice and international standard. In accordance with IFC PS6, habitats are divided into

modified, natural and critical habitats. Critical habitats can be either modified or natural habitats

supporting high biodiversity value, including:

● C1: Habitat of significant importance to critically endangered and/or endangered species

(IUCN Red List)

● C2: Habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species

● C3: Habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and/or

congregatory species

● C4: Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems, and/or

● C5: Areas associated with key evolutionary processes

In addition to the above five biological criteria, the IFC Guidance Note 6 (IFC, 2012b) clarifies

further circumstances in which an area may be recognised as critical habitat. The additional

criteria that are relevant to this project include:

● C6: Legally protected areas in IUCN Categories I-II

● C7: Internationally recognised areas.

The IFC PS 6 states that in areas of critical habitat, the Borrower will not implement any project

activities unless:

● No other viable alternatives within the region exist for development of the project on modified

or natural habitats that are not critical

● The project does not lead to measurable adverse impacts on those biodiversity values for

which the critical habitat was designated, and on the ecological processes supporting those

biodiversity values

● The project does not lead to a net reduction in the global and/or national/regional population

of any critically endangered or endangered species over a reasonable period of time

● A robust, appropriately designed, and long-term biodiversity monitoring and evaluation

program is integrated into the client’s management program. A BAP is required for all projects located in critical habitat (IFC, 2012a) and is recommended for

projects that have the potential to significantly impact natural habitat (IFC, 2012b). The ESIA

has highlighted the potential presence of critical habitats within the AoI of the Project. The CHA

undertaken by ERM is included in Table 6.1, Annex E of the ESIA (SOL, 2013). The CHA was

since revised and updated by Mott MacDonald and the latest version is appended as part of this

document in Appendix A.

3.3.3 Asian Development Bank (ADB) standards

The ADB Safeguards Policy Statement (SPS) 2009 sets out policy principles and outlines the

delivery process for ADB’s safeguard policy in relation to environmental safeguards. The ADB

has adopted a set of specific safeguard requirements that borrowers/clients are required to


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

meet in addressing environmental and social impacts and risks. ADB staff will ensure that

borrowers/clients comply with these requirements during project preparation and

implementation.

The safeguard policies are operational policies that seek to avoid, minimise or mitigate the

adverse environmental and social impacts of projects including protecting the rights of those

people likely to be affected or marginalised by the development process. ADBs safeguard policy

framework in the SPS consists of three operational policies on the environment, indigenous

people and involuntary resettlement. ADB has developed operational procedures to be followed

in relation to the SPS policies and these are included in the ADB Operations Manual.

Requirements for assessing and addressing biodiversity effects of projects are set out within

ADB Safeguard Requirements 1: Environment, Section D8 ‘Biodiversity Conservation and

Sustainable Natural Resource Management’. This document is included as an appendix to the SPS.

Section D8 requires the environmental assessment process to focus on the major threats to

biodiversity and for the borrower/client to identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate

potentially adverse impacts and risks and, as a last resort, propose compensatory measures,

such as biodiversity offsets, to achieve no net loss or a net gain of the affected biodiversity.

Obligations on the borrower/client differ depending on whether the habitat is classified as

modified, natural or critical. For areas of critical habitat Paragraph 28 of the requirements state

that no project activity will be implemented in areas of critical habitat unless:

● There are no measurable adverse impacts, or likelihood of such, on the critical habitat which

could impair its high biodiversity value or the ability to function

● The project is not anticipated to lead to a reduction in the population of any recognized

endangered or critically endangered species or a loss in area of the habitat concerned such

that the persistence of a viable and representative host ecosystem be compromised

● For any lesser impacts, mitigation measures will be designed to achieve at least no net loss

of biodiversity. They may include a combination of actions, such as post-project restoration

of habitats, offset of losses through the creation or effective conservation of ecologically

comparable areas that are managed for biodiversity while respecting the on-going use of

such biodiversity by indigenous peoples or traditional communities, and compensation to

direct users of biodiversity.

When the project involves activities in a critical habitat, ADB requires the borrower/client to

retain qualified and experienced external experts to assist in conducting the assessment.

Details of the Project’s compliance with the ADB SPS are given in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Project’s compliance with the Lenders’ requirements

Lenders Requirements Project compliance

Rationale

ADB Safeguards Policy Statement (SPS) 2009 (Paragraph 28)

For areas of critical habitat, the requirements state that no project activity will be implemented in areas of critical habitat unless:

● There are no measurable adverse impacts, or

likelihood of such, on the critical habitat which

could impair its high biodiversity value or the

ability to function;

✓ The total area affected by the Project within the DMU is approximately 69ha (see Table 5.3). This is the equivalent to 0.08% of the entire land coverage within the Western Batang Toru Forest. See CHA Section 5.4 in Annex A


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Lenders Requirements Project compliance

Rationale

● The project is not anticipated to lead to a

reduction in the population of any recognized

endangered or critically endangered species or a

loss in area of the habitat concerned such that

the persistence of a viable and representative

host ecosystem be compromised;

✓ It is considered that there will be no measurable adverse effects on the viability of the population of endangered or critically endangered species in the NIL Project Area as a result of the development as only a very small proportion of their habitat will be affected. See Section 5.7.2

● For any lesser impacts, mitigation measures will

be designed to achieve at least no net loss of

biodiversity. They may include a combination of

actions, such as post-project restoration of

habitats, offset of losses through the creation or

effective conservation of ecologically

comparable areas that are managed for

biodiversity while respecting the ongoing use of

such biodiversity by Indigenous Peoples or

traditional communities, and compensation to

direct users of biodiversity.

✓ Sections 7 and 9 outline the proposed actions to be undertaken for the habitats and species of conservation value identified with the aim of achieving no net loss to biodiversity and a net gain in critical habitats.



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

4 Biodiversity baseline

4.1 General approach and methodology

4.1.1 Desktop study

A desktop study was undertaken as part of the ESIA (SOL, 2013). Full details were not

disclosed in the document, therefore are not listed here. Species of conservation importance

were determined from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org) and

nationally protected species from Indonesian wildlife protection legislation (PP No. 7 of 1999).

Further review was also undertaken of online academic research documents as part of the BAP

process. This included consultation with PanEco-SOCP-YEL (http://en.batangtoru.org) who

were able to provide assistance on previous studies of the Batang Toru Forest. This specifically

included information on flora, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

4.1.2 Field surveys

4.1.2.1 Overview

A biodiversity survey was undertaken by ERM in April 2013 and an assessment of the Project

was carried out to IFC PS6 standards (see Chapter 3 and Annex E of the ESIA). This included

the following:

● Flora and vegetation survey (including habitat mapping)

● Mammal survey (including bats)

● Bird survey

● Reptile and amphibian surveys

● Invertebrates

A further habitat condition assessment was undertaken by Mott MacDonald in September 2013

(see Annex E of the ESIA) in order to assess the suitability of the habitats within the Project

Area near NIL1 and WJP1 (identified as ‘potential critical habitat’ by ERM) to support endangered (EN) and critically endangered (CR) species.

Following these two assessments it was concluded that the potential critical habitat is known, or

has the potential, to support EN and CR species. Therefore, further species-specific surveys

were commissioned for SOL by Mott MacDonald in November 2013. These surveys were

undertaken by PanEco-SOCP-YEL, a consortium of international and national NGOs operating

in Batang Toru forest, between November 2013 and September 2014.

The PanEco-SOCP-YEL surveys initially comprised a rapid ecological assessment of the forest

near NIL1 and WJP1 and were followed by more detailed surveys in June 2014 (mammal

survey) and September 2014 (plants, birds and herpetofauna). The surveys included the

following methods; survey dates are given in brackets:

● Reconnaissance transect surveys for siamangs, agile gibbons and Tapanuli orangutan (16 –

22 November 2013);

● Camera trapping for Sumatran tiger, Asian tapir and Malayan pangolin as well as marbled

cat, Sumatran serow, sambar deer, Malaysian sun bear, binturong, slow loris and wild boar

(16 November 2013 continuing until 30 June 2014)

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://en.batangtoru.org/


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

● Remote aerial survey using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for detailed habitat mapping

(20 – 22 November 2013)

● Orangutan nest survey (June 2014)

● Fixed call count survey for siamangs and agile gibbons (June 2014)

● Sun bear signs survey (June 2014)

● Transects, road counts, raptor watches, nocturnal walks, camera trapping and sound

recordings for birds (September 2014)

● Visual encounters (VES), random surveys, road counts for herpetofauna (September 2014)

● Quadrat sampling surveys for plants (September 2014)

4.1.2.2 Methodology

The methodology used for the ERM biodiversity survey and the Mott MacDonald habitat

condition assessment comprised a walkover encounter survey within the Project Area. Further

details can be found in Annex E of the ESIA.

A brief summary of the methodology for the surveys undertaken by PanEco-SOCP-YEL

between November 2013 and June 2014 is given below. Further details are given in Pre-

construction and Short-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology Rev C (SOL,

2014) and in the Rapid Assessment of Bird, Reptile/Amphibians and Floral Diversity

(PanEco/YEL, 2014) (see Appendix E)

Reconnaissance transect surveys (November 2013)

Siamang, agile gibbon and orangutan were surveyed using reconnaissance transect surveys,

which were carried out on foot through areas of suitable habitat near NIL1 and WJP1. The

surveys were carried out by two teams over seven continuous days in November 2013. The

transects were walked between 07.00 and 16.00 h each day and the following data were

collected:

● Animal contacts: Time, GPS location, species, number of individuals, compass bearing &

distance of the group centre from the observer, and photographs

● Orangutan nest contacts: Time, GPS location, nest age/height/position, diameter at breast

height of the nesting tree(s), compass bearing & distance of the nest from the observer, and

photographs

● Animal vocalizations: Time, GPS location, species, compass bearing & estimated distance of

the vocalization

● Animal signs: Time, GPS location, species, type of sign, compass bearing & estimated

distance of the animal sign from observer, photograph, and a detailed description

● Vegetation profile (every 100m): type of land cover, canopy height, canopy cover, diameter

at breast height of trees in the area, and a detailed description of the vegetation

Camera trapping surveys (November 2013 to June 2014)

Terrestrial mammal species (Sumatran tiger, Asian tapir and Malayan pangolin as well as

marbled cat, Sumatran serow, sambar deer, Malaysian sun bear, binturong and wild boar) were

surveyed using camera traps. Twelve camera traps were placed within the Project Area, at least

100m from one another. The cameras were sited so as to cover a combination of habitat types

and locations within the areas of NIL1 and WJP1 (see Figure 7 within Appendix A of the CHA,

which is appended to this BAP in Appendix A).


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Following placement, six camera-traps (those belong to PanEco-SOCP-YEL) were collected

following completion of the reconnaissance transect surveys and the data analysed. The other

six camera traps (those belonging to SOL) were left in the forest. These cameras have been

running between 2-3 months at a single location. Each month, the camera-traps were checked

and moved as necessary. This has continued until June 2014.

Remote aerial survey using UAVs (November 2013)

The aim of the remote aerial survey was to obtain a high-resolution photo-mosaic to allow for

delineation of the habitat types in the project area. The various stages of the survey were as

follows:

● Determine viable take-off/landing sites;

● Fly grids taking video and/or still photographs. Video provides an overview of a wide area;

photographs can be assembled in a photo-mosaic and geo-referenced so that it can be used

in GIS and

● Analysis of the photo-mosaic and videos in collaboration with field team members to

delineate broad habitat classes, and thus better determine potential distribution of target

species.

Following completion of the survey a photo-mosaic of the project area was produced, with a

maximum total area of 4km2.

4.1.2.3 Orangutan nest surveys (June 2014)

Nest survey for Orangutan was undertaken in June 2014. The nest counts were conducted

along 20 randomly placed transects in the Project area, following methods of Marshall et al.

(2008) and Buckland et al. (2010). Each transect was 500m in length, and all transects were a

minimum of 200m apart.

4.1.2.4 Gibbon and siamang fixed call count surveys (June 2014)

Fixed call count surveys for gibbons and siamang were undertaken in June 2014 following

methodology established by Brockelman & Ali (1987). The density of the primate groups was

calculated by a series of three listening stations (all consisting of a set of three listening posts

each) and each was monitored for five consecutive days. Each survey day, between 05:00 –

12:00, surveyors from each listening post recorded the time of a group’s call, the species (ie gibbon or siamang), the compass bearing, and the estimated distance. Via triangulation, group

calls were then marked on to a map in ArcGIS, and the total number of gibbon and siamang

groups heard was estimated for each listening location.

4.1.2.5 Sun bear surveys (June 2014)

Sun bear sign surveys were undertaken in June 2014. Bear signs were recorded along twenty

10m wide x 500m long (0.5ha) strip-transects. These were carried out along the same transects

as made for the orangutan nest surveys. Each transect was surveyed by a team of three

people, with one person moving slowly along the midline whilst recording data and distances

with a Walktax Distance Measurer (Forestry Suppliers Inc., USA), and two people zigzagging on

either side of the midline in search of sign throughout the 5m strip of forest on either side of the

midline.

All sun bear signs encountered within the strip-transect were investigated in detail and recorded

after consensus is achieved among the researchers. Type of sign was recorded, estimated age

of sign, and forest category in which sign is encountered (ie ridge, swamp, slope). All tree stems

>5cm diameter at breast height (DBH) were investigated for claw marks, and the forest floor


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

was searched for dug up or broken termite nests, soil excavations, or logs ripped by sun bears.

On average 2.5h are used to record signs along one 500m strip-transect. Within strip-transects,

live aboveground termite nests and figs (Ficus spp., both trees and hemi-epiphytes) were also

recorded during surveys as termites and figs make up a large proportion of the sun bear diet

(Wong et al. 2002, Fredriksson et al. 2006).

4.1.2.6 Bird survey (September 2014)

Transects

Variable Circular Plots (VCP) were laid out along four 1km transects. Along each transect six

VCP stations were placed at roughly 200m intervals to minimise overlap in observations

amongst stations; all birds heard and/or seen were recorded for a 20 minute period at each

station. Each transect was surveyed for approximately three hours during the morning, from

about 30 minutes before sunrise (ca 5.45 – 7.30 h) and again in the late afternoon, ending at

sunset (ca 14.30 – 18.15 h).

Road Counts

The 50 individual sampling method (as first used and described by Thiollay, 1996) has been

used along the main access roads to the NIL1 and NIL2 areas. In this method, birds are tallied

in samples of each 50 individuals, whilst walking slowly along a track. The forest edge along

these roads offered good opportunities to make an inventory of forest edge and canopy species,

that would remain largely uncovered along the forest transects. Periods between morning and

afternoon surveys, as well as on travel days when no VCP counts took place, have been used

to survey birds in surrounding areas in a more or less random manner, along rivers, logging

roads, and former skid trails and clearings.

Sound recordings

During all ornithological surveys bird vocalisations have been recorded. A Marantz MPD66 solid

state recorder with Sennheiser ME67 unidirectional microphone was used to record bird calls

and songs. These recordings are made especially for taxa needing confirmation (eg unknown

calls, rare and/or confusing species) and therefore useful for documentation, identification, and

in some occasions for play-back to lure out skulking species.

4.1.2.7 Herpetofauna survey (September 2014)

Visual Encounter Survey (VES):

VES (sensu Heyer 1994 and references within) was used to distinguish the richness of a given

species in a given survey area, make a detailed species presence list, and estimate the relative

abundance of species in a given survey area. This method is not utilized to measure species

density, as not all individuals of a given species are contacted and observed during a given

survey period. However, if used repeatedly, in combination with tagging and recapture, this

method can produce reasonably accurate density estimates.

Random Survey

The random survey method is utilised to cover a broad area in a short period of time, both within

and outside the primary survey area. The primary result is a better understanding of the

diversity of species of amphibians and reptiles within and outside study area.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Road Counts

The road count method is utilised to collect all possible data on amphibians and reptiles that are

found along a main road, both living and dead. This method was only employed on the Onan

Hasang-NIL transect.

4.1.2.8 Plant survey (September 2014)

Analysis of vegetation

Data collection for vegetation analysis was performed using quadrat sampling techniques. This

technique is used to determine the abundance and diversity of plants in tropical forests. The

placement of 14 plots was done randomly. At each plot location, trees that had a DBH ≥ 20cm

were sampled in a 20x20m area, for trees DBH = 10-20cm a 10x10m area was sampled, for

trees DBH 5-10cm a 5x5m area was sampled, and for ground flora a 2x2m area was sampled.

4.1.3 Protection and nature conservation areas

No national protected areas for nature conservation are located within or adjacent to the project.

However, the site is located partially within the Batang Toru forest whose land-use status was

formally changed at provincial level in 2010 from production to protection forest (Hutan Lindung)

(see Figure 4). This change limits the activities which are permitted in the forest including the

prohibition of logging which indirectly benefits the conservation of wildlife.

The construction of the geothermal plant was recognised in the adjustment of the spatial plan

and the land within the Project Area still remains designated as production forest. The

development was therefore not directly affected by the land use changes for the Batang Toru

forest.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Figure 4: North Sumatra spatial plan 2010 - 2030

Source: PanEco-SOCP-YEL


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

4.1.4 Key biodiversity areas

The Batang Toru was recognised as a key biodiversity area (KBA) in 2007 during a joint

initiative coordinated by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and Conservation

International (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Location of Sumatran key biodiversity areas

Source: Conservation International

(https://library.conservation.org/Published%20Documents/2009/Key%20Biodiversity%20Area%20map%20-%20Sumatra.pdf)

4.2 Habitats of conservation value

The habitats within the Batang Toru were described by Perbatakusuma et al. (2011) as

comprising the following characteristics using the Laumonier (1997) mapping system:

‘1) Western plain and foothill formations <300 m: secondary and derived types mosaic, mainly

shrubby; 2) Medium elevation western hill formations (300 – 1000 m): secondary and derived

types mosaic, mainly shrubby; 2b) ditto, forest from Airbangis to Bakongan regions (i.e., one of

the 16 main physiographic regions recognised for Sumatra); 3) Formations of the Barisan range

above 1000 m: submontane forest (1000 m – 1800 m); 4) Cultivated types and plantations:

mosaic of dryland rice, food crops and secondary growth.’

A detailed description of the habitats within the Project footprint and surrounding area to 500m

is provided in the ESIA (SOL, 2013) and in the Rapid Assessment of Floral Diversity

(Paneco/YEL 2014). The results from the rapid ecological assessment undertaken by PanEco-

https://library.conservation.org/Published%20Documents/2009/Key%20Biodiversity%20Area%20map%20-%20Sumatra.pdf

https://library.conservation.org/Published%20Documents/2009/Key%20Biodiversity%20Area%20map%20-%20Sumatra.pdf


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

SOCP-YEL are given in Appendix B. A summary of the main habitats of conservation value and

their IFC classification (modified or natural) in the Project Area within the contiguous forest

boundary is provided in Table 6 below. It should be noted that all habitats in the NIL Project

Area are considered to be critical due to the presence of CR, EN, and endemic species.

In the WJP1 area, a clear demarcation between different forest types was impossible (see

PanEco/YEL Rapid Biodiversity Survey, September 2014).

Table 6: Main habitats of conservation value identified in the Project area within contiguous forest boundary

Habitat Type IFC Category

Conservation value

SIL NIL[1]

Mature agroforest: this habitat type is characterised by benzoin tree (Styrax paralelo neurum) plantation, some other species found are cocoa (Theobroma cacao), coffee (Coffea robusta), durian (Durio zibethinus), coconut, areca nut, stinkybeans (Parkia speciosa), langsat (Lansium domesticum), rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) and areca palm (Areca catechu).

Modified Medium X X

Mixed forest, comprising a mix of natural and disturbed forests. The large trees found in the study area are Rhodolaia championii (local name: sialagundi/kayu sembangaran), Schima wallichii (Parakpak) a number of species from the family Laureaceae (Modang), Guttiferae (Kandis), and Shorea platyclados (Dark Red Meranti). The ground flora vegetation is primarily species of ferns, Araceae and Ardisia.

Modified Medium X

“Kayu Arang” forest, similar to Kerangas (Heath) Forest, characterized by a relatively low level of diversity. Common woody species found in the area are Vaccinium heterophylla, Rhododendron spp. and Rhodoleia championii.

Natural High X

“Volcanic Stone” forest [2] (Hutan batuan vulkanik), with geothermal activity producing sulphur gas. Vegetation commonly found belongs to Ericaceae and Myrtaceae. Ground flora vegetation is mainly Ficus deltoideus and Nephentes spp.

Natural Medium X

Open areas: derived from natural forest, degraded due to past human activity, such as areas with roads. Some pioneer plants have been re-growing. The common species found are fig trees, such as Ficus fulva, F. grossularioides, species from the family of Euphorbiaceae, such as Sapium baccatum, Homalanthus populneus and some species of ferns such as Cyathea contaminans and Angiopteris avecta. The ground flora consists of species of grasses and orchids, such as Spathoglottis plicata and Arundina graminifolia.

Modified Low X X

Note: [1] All habitats are considered to be critical due to the presence of critically endangered and endangered species. [2] Recorded within Project area but not within Project footprint. Source: SOL, 2013

The original assessment of habitats undertaken by ERM identified approximately 2.8ha of

potential critical habitat within the NIL Area which will be impacted by the development. Further

assessments undertaken by Mott MacDonald based on up-to-date construction designs and

biodiversity data show that approximately 69ha of the NIL infrastructures are located directly

within the contiguous forest boundary. This comprises approximately 42ha of (critical) natural

habitats including disturbed/secondary forest and low primary forest as well as approximately

27ha of (critical) modified habitats including mixed plantation forest.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

4.3 Flora of conservation value

Information is limited for the flora of conservation value which occurs within the WBTFB.

However, surveys undertaken by Conservation International (Perbatakusuma et al., 2006) and

PanEco-SOCP-YEL (pers. comm.) within the wider forest (exact locations not disclosed) have

identified at least nine species (names not given) which are categorised as threatened on the

IUCN Red List.

The data from the available flora surveys includes seven species3 from the SOL Project Area,

which are considered protected and/or endemic (Table 7) (PanEco/YEL, Rapid Biodiversity

Survey, September 2014). Nepenthes tobaica is an endemic species to Sumatra. This species

has been found in "volcanic stone" and "kayu arang" habitat types, is listed in the IUCN Red List

and protected by the Indonesian Law. The dark red meranti (Shorea platyclados) (EN) has also

been found in the Project Area. These two species are considered of high conservation value.

Table 7: Flora of conservation value

No Family Species Local name

CITES Indonesian PP 7/1999

IUCN Status

1 Cyatheaceae Cyathea contaminans

Paku tiang Appendix II

2 Cyatheaceae Cyathea glabra Paku tiang Appendix II

3 Dipterocarpaceae Shorea platyclados

Dark Red Meranti

EN

4 Nepenthaceae Nepenthes albomarginata

Tahul-tahul Appendix II Protected Conservation dependent

5 Nepenthaceae Nepenthes tobaica

Tahul-tahul Appendix II Protected LC

6 Orchidaceae Dendrobium pulchrum

Anggrek Appendix II

7 Orchidaceae Calanthe triplicata

Anggrek Appendix II


4.4 Mammals of conservation value

Since 2009, 49 species of mammals have been identified in the WBTFB by PanEco-SOCP-

YEL. Of these species 18 are categorised as threatened on the IUCN Red List and 20 are

protected under Indonesian law (PP No.7 of 1999) (Table 8).

Sixteen species categorised as threatened and fourteen protected under Indonesian law (PP

No.7 of 1999) have been recorded or have the potential to occur within the NIL Project Area

located within the Batang Toru forest (Table 8).

Five species of primates were confirmed as being present within the NIL Project Area during the

PanEco-SOCP-YEL surveys in November 2013 and June 2014. These are Tapanuli orangutan,

agile gibbon, mitred leaf monkey, pig-tailed macaque and siamang. Evidence of 12 other

mammal species was also found including Malayan pangolin, Malayan sun bear and marbled

cat as well as five ungulate species including Sumatran serow and sambar deer.

The likely presence of Sumatran tigers was also recorded by a large feline scat and pug marks

within the NIL Project Area by PanEco-SOCP-YEL surveys in November 2013. This species

was also confirmed during the ERM surveys when a tiger was heard to roar (SOL, 2013).

3 Note: The Grammatophyllum speciosum was removed since the last revision due to the unprotected status in the latest Indonesian

protection list.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Evidence of the presence of marbled cat was also found in the Project Area during the Mott

MacDonald surveys undertaken in September 2013.

Evidence of Tapanuli orangutan was also recorded by the presence of nest sites within the

Project Area during the surveys undertaken by PanEco-SOCP-YEL in June 2014.

Table 8: Threatened and protected mammal species recorded within the Batang Toru forest. Species highlighted in bold have been recorded in the Project area.

Order/family Scientific name English PP No.7

IUCN Red List

Carnivora (Mustelidae) Aonyx cinerea Oriental small-clawed otter

VU

Carnivora (Viverridae) Arctictis binturong Binturong X VU

Carnivora (Viverridae) Prionodon linsang Banded linsang X LC

Carnivora (Felidae) Panthera tigris sumatrae

Sumatran tiger X CR

Carnivora (Felidae) Pardofelis marmorata

Marbled cat X NT(b)

Carnivora (Felidae) Prionailurus bengalensis

Leopard cat X LC

Carnivora (Felidae) Catopuma teminckii Golden cat X NT

Carnivora (Ursidae) Helarctos malayanus Malayan sun bear X VU

Cervidae Rusa unicolor Sambar deer X VU

Cervidae Muntiacus muntjak Common barking deer

X LC

Cervidae Capricornis sumatraensis

Sumatran serow X VU

Perissodactyla (Tapiridae) Tapirus indicus Asian tapir X EN

Pholidota (Manidae) Manis javanica Malayan pangolin X CR

Primata (Cercopithecidae)

Macaca nemestrina Pig tailed macaque VU


Presbytis melalophos

Mitred leaf monkey X EN

Primata (Hylobtaidae) Hylobates agilis Agile gibbon X EN

Primata (Hylobtaidae) Symphalangus syndactylus

Siamang X EN

Primata (Lorisidae) Nycticebus coucang Slow loris X VU

Primata (Pongidae) Pongo tapanuliensis Tapanuli orangutan (c)

X CR

Rodentia (Muridae) Maxomys whiteheadi Whitehead’s spiny rat VU

Tragulidae Tragulus javanicus Lesser mouse deer X LC

Tragulidae Tragulus napu Greater mouse deer X LC

Source: SOL, 2013; PanEco-YEL-SOCP, 2013, 2014. Note:

(a) The following species have been removed since the last removed since the last revision due to the unprotected status in the latest Indonesian protection list or the change of IUCN status from Vulnerable to Near Threatened/Least Concern: Banded Palm Civet, Colugo, Asian Porcupine, Dark-tailed tree rat and Three striped ground squirrel.

(b) Marbled cat changed its IUCN status from Vulnerable to Near Threatened in 2015. Ross, J., Brodie, J., Cheyne, S., Datta, A., Hearn, A., Loken, B., Lynam, A., McCarthy, J., Phan, C., Rasphone, A., Singh, P. & Wilting, A. 2016. Pardofelis marmorata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T16218A97164299. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T16218A97164299.en. Downloaded on 08 November 2018

(c) The Sumatran Orangutan was previously listed in the BAP as a mammal of conservation value and has now been replaced with the Tapanuli Orangutan based on the updated information provided in the IUCN Red List.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T16218A97164299.en


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

4.5 Birds of conservation value

A general study of birds within the WBTFB area (exact location not disclosed) was undertaken

in 2003 by Bas van Balen (unpublished). A total of 256 species were recorded, including 103

categorised as vulnerable (VU) on the IUCN Red List. In addition, four species endemic to

Indonesia were recorded; however, no range-restricted species (those occurring within an area

of 50,000km² or less) were observed. These species were: Sumatran drongo (Dicrurus

sumatranus), bronze-tailed peacock pheasant (Polyplectron chalcurum), cream-striped bulbul

(Pycnonotus leucogrammicus) and spot-necked bulbul (Pycnonotus tympanistrigus). More

species of birds have been recorded in the forest since this study was carried out (PanEco,

pers.comm.); however this data was not available for inclusion in this version of the BAP report.

A total of 56 bird species were recorded in the Project Area during the biodiversity surveys

undertaken by ERM in April 2013. A total of 130 species were recorded in the PanEco/YEL

Biodiversity Survey in September 2014, including 13 species protected under the Indonesian

Law, one and seven species on CITES Appendix I and II respectively, and four endemic bird

species (endemic to Sumatra) (Table 9). Further details of their conservation and legal status

along with the habitats in which they were recorded are given in the Rapid Assessment of Birds

Report (PanEco/YEL 2014). It should be noted that although the PanEco/YEL report indicates

11 of the bird species found have restricted ranges, none of these species are considered

“restricted-range species” in accordance with the critical habitat criteria in the IFC GN6 (2012),4

due to their extent of occurrence being greater than 50,000km2.

Helmeted hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil) was heard on two consecutive days above NIL1 in the 2014

PanEco/YEL surveys. The conservation status of this species was updated from NT to CR in

2016, and therefore this species is now considered of high conservation value.

Table 9: Birds of conservation value detected during the September 2014 rapid survey

Bird species(a) English name

Endemic PP 7/1999 Protected

CITES IUCN Status(b)

Habitat (c)

Polyplectron chalcurum

Bronze-tailed peacock-pheasant(d)

x x

I

Spilornis cheela Crested serpent eagle

x App. II

II

Spizaetus alboniger

Blyth's hawk-eagle

x App. II

I

Treron oxyura Sumatran green pigeon

I

Loriculus galgulus

Blue-crowned hanging parrot

x App. II

II

Strix leptogrammica

Brown wood owl

x App. II

I

Harpactes erythrocephalus

Red-headed trogon

x

I

Apalharpactes mackloti

Sumatran trogon

x x

I

Rhyticeros undulatus

Wreathed hornbill

x App. II

I

Buceros rhinoceros

Rhinoceros hornbill

x App. II

I

Rhinoplax vigil Helmeted hornbill

x App. I CR(e) I

4 Restricted-range species are those which have an extent of occurrence of 50,000 km2 or less


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Bird species(a) English name

Endemic PP 7/1999 Protected

CITES IUCN Status(b)

Habitat (c)

Actenoides concretus

Rufous-collared kingfisher

x

I

Psilopogon pyrolophus

Fire-tufted barbet

I

Pycnonotus bimaculatus

Orange-spotted bulbul

II

Iole virescens Olive bulbul I

Chloropsis venusta

Blue-masked leafbird

x x I

Cinclidium diana Sunda robin I

Aethopyga siparaja

Crimson sunbird

x

III

Anthreptes rhodolaemus

Red-throated sunbird

x

II

Zosterops atricapilla

Black-capped white-eye

I

Dendrocitta occipitalis

Sumatran treepie

x x

I

Note: (a) The following species have been removed since the last removed since the last revision due to the

unprotected status in the latest Indonesian protection list: black eagle, crested hawk eagle, reddish scops-owl, white-throated kingfisher, banded kingfisher, oriental dwarf kingfishers, purple throated sunbird, olive backed sunbird, Temminck’s sunbird, ruby-cheeked sunbird, plain-throated sunbird, purple-naped sunbird, streaky-breasted spiderhunter, little spiderhunter, long-billed spiderhunter. In addition, the Sumatran laughingthrush Garrulax bicolor was previously listed. A current review of the survey results removes the Sumatran laughingthrush from the list as it was only observed with bird dealers from Tarutung and Sibolga, not in the Project Arera surveys, and is not considered likely to be present within the Project AoI

(b) Only species with Status VU, EN or CR are listed (c) Habitat type: I, primary and old secondary forest; II, forest gaps and forest edge; III, open woodlands and

cultivated areas. (d) The bronze tailed peacock pheasant was previously considered range restricted, a review of the latest

available data reclassifies the species as not range restricted. Bronze-tailed peacock-pheasant also changed IUCN status from vulnerable to least concern since the previous BAP.

(e) Helmeted hornbill changed its status from NT to CR in 2016. BirdLife International 2017. Rhinoplax vigil (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22682464A117225617. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22682464A117225617.en Downloaded on 07 November 2018


4.6 Amphibians and reptiles of conservation value

Three species of amphibians and reptiles categorised as threatened on the IUCN Red List have

been recorded by PanEco-SOCP-YEL in the WBTFB (exact location not disclosed). These are

Kalophrynus punctatus (VU) and Asian forest tortoise (Manouria emys) (EN). In addition, two

species endemic to Sumatra have also been recorded. These are Sumatran torrent frog (Huia

sumatrana) and Wegner's glass lizard (Ophisaurus wegneri).

Herpetofauna surveys undertaken by ERM in 2013 in the Project Area recorded four species of

reptiles and seven species of amphibians. None of the species were considered as threatened

on the IUCN Red List. Two species endemic to Indonesia were recorded: white-lipped frog

(Hylarana chalconota) and fanged river frog (Limnonectes macrodon). Both species were found

within areas of disturbed/secondary forest.

A rapid survey of herpetofauna was undertaken in September 2014 by PanEco/YEL in the NIL

area. From the 31 species of amphibians and reptiles that are known to occur in the Project



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

area, three5 are considered to be of ‘high conservation value’ (HCV), as they are endemic to the area or are listed as VU by the IUCN Red Data List (IUCN, 2014).

The HCV species encountered include:

● False file-eared tree frog (Polypedates pseudotilophus): endemic to Sumatra.

● Hayek’s slender agama (Bronchocela hayeki): endemic to Sumatra.

● Wegner’s glass lizard (Dopasia [Ophisaurus] wegneri): endemic to Sumatra, known to prefer

upland areas, and has so far only been encountered in the Batang Toru Forest Complex

after the type specimen was discovered in West Sumatra in 1959.

5 The Stone creek frog (Limnonectes macrodon) has been removed from the list due an update in the IUCN red list status from

Vulnerable in 2004 to Least Concern in 2018. Hence the number of HCV species has been reduced from four to three from BAP rev G.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

5 Critical habitat

5.1 Overview

Critical habitat is a description of the most significant and highest priority areas of the planet for

biodiversity conservation. It takes into account both global and national priority setting systems

and builds on the conservation biology principles of 'vulnerability' (degree of threat) and

'irreplaceability' (rarity or uniqueness). Determination of critical habitat is based upon

quantitative thresholds of biodiversity priority which are largely based on globally accepted

precedents such as IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN, 2014) and KBA thresholds.

The identification of IFC critical habitat is based on seven criteria (IFC, 2012a, 2012b) as

described in Section 3.3.2.

It is recognised that not all critical habitat is equal: there are grades of critical habitat of varying

importance. The IFC distinguish two main grades:

● Tier 1 critical habitat, highest importance, in which development is generally very difficult to

implement and offsets are generally not possible except in exceptional circumstances.

● Tier 2 critical habitat, high importance, in which development can be implemented through

appropriate planning and mitigation, and offsets may be possible under some circumstances.

A CHA was undertaken by ERM to help identify the conservation priorities for the Project in

2013. The CHA has since been revised and updated by Mott MacDonald as a standalone

document and is included as Appendix A of this report. The CHA was designed to identify areas

of high biodiversity value within the project areas which would be particularly sensitive and

require special attention.

5.2 Identified critical habitats

Using baseline ecological conditions (see Section 4) established through the review of the ESIA

conducted for the Project, supplemented with further desktop, consultation and field studies, the

Project was found to trigger critical habitat criteria requirements.

IUCN CR, EN and Indonesian endemic species were identified which triggered critical habitat

C1 and C2 criteria, and the Batang Toru Forest Ecosystem (BTFE) and Batang Toru KBA

triggered C4, C5 and C7 criteria. Refer to the full CHA in Appendix A for a detailed rationale for

each critical habitat assessment criterion. All triggered species and habitats associated with the

DMU have been summarised in Table 10.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Table 10: Biodiversity features which meet the threshold for critical habitat in the DMU

Common name Scientific name

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Global population in the DMU

Status (a)

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 2

Mammals

Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris sumatrae

- x - x - - - - - <10% CR

Tapanuli orangutan

Pongo tapanuliensis

x - - x - - - - - ~70% CR

Agile gibbon Hylobates agilis - x - - - - - - - <10% EN

Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus

- x - - - - - - - <10% EN

Mitred leaf monkey Presbytis melanophos

- x - x - - - - - <10% EN

Malayan pangolin Manis javanica - x - - - - - - - <10% CR

Herpetofauna

Wegner's glass lizard

Ophisaurus wegneri

- - - x - - - - - Unknown DD

Hayek's slender agama

Bronchocela hayeki

- - - x - - - - - <10% NE

False file-eared treefrog

Polypedates pseudotilophus

- - - x - - - - - Unknown LC

Birds

Helmeted hornbill Rhinoplax vigil - x - - - - - - - Unknown CR

Plants

Dark red meranti Shorea platyclados

- x - - - - - - - Unknown EN

Pitcher plant Nephentes tobaica

- - - x - - - - - Unknown LC

Habitats and ecosystems

Batang Toru Forest Ecosystem & KBA - - - - - x x - x - -

Note: C1: Critically endangered and/or endangered species C2: Endemic and/or restricted-range species. The endemic region of analysis for the CHA is considered to be the island of Sumatra. C3: Concentrations of migratory and congregatory species

C4: Highly-threatened and unique ecosystems C5: Key evolutionary processes C6: Legally protected areas in IUCN Categories I-II C7: Internationally recognised areas

(a) Status: IUCN critically endangered and endangered species (CR: critically endangered; EN: endangered; VU: vulnerable; NT: near threatened; LC: least concern; DD: data deficient; NE: not evaluated)

Source: Mott MacDonald, 2018


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

5.3 Project impacts on critical habitats triggers

The location of a project within critical habitat does not mean that the project should not

proceed. IFC PS6 2012 focusses on appropriate mitigation and offset actions, to ensure net

gain to critical habitat in the country or region as a result of the presence of the project. Through

application of the mitigation hierarchy, the application of the OnFRP and BOMP as well as the

implementation of the actions given in this BAP, it is considered likely that there will not be any

measurable adverse residual impacts as a result of this project.

The Project’s impacts on the features that trigger critical habitat have been summarised in Table

12. Details of the impacts can be seen in the CHA in Appendix A, and SOL’s requirements with regard to critical habitat are discussed in the following sections.

To inform this assessment, the habitat areas to be affected by the Project have been calculated

and the results are presented in Table 11 below. A habitat classification for the areas within the

footprint of the Project has been prepared through interpretation of satellite imagery and

ground-truthing (see Section 4.1.2).

The total of area affected by the Project within the DMU is approximately 69ha (see Table 11).

This is the equivalent to 0.08% of the entire land coverage within the WBTFB.

Table 11: Habitat areas to be affected by the Project in the contiguous forest area

Habitat type Permanent loss (ha)

Temporary loss (ha)

Total (ha) Percentage of DMU

Low primary forest * 23.8 14.6 38.4 0.042

Disturbed/secondary forest 3.0 0.9 3.9 0.004

Mixed forest 16.9 9.7 26.6 0.030

Total 43.7 25.1 68.8 0.076

Note: Permanent loss = NIL-1n, NIL-2n, NIL-3n, WJP-1n, WJR-1n, WJR-2n, new access roads and the power plant. Temporary loss = Areas around NIL-1n, NIL-2n, WJP-1n (well pad and access road), and around the power

plant. * In WJP1 area, a clear demarcation between the different habitat areas was not possible. Based on the

precautionary principle, it has been counted as Low primary forest (including old secondary forest and Kayu Arang (heath) forest).


Table 12: Summary of Project impacts on critical habitat trigger species

Critical habitat trigger species

Main threats Project impact on trigger species

Sumatran tiger Habitat loss, illegal trade and prey depletion

● Direct impacts from habitat loss have been mitigated through the OnFRP (temporary habitat loss) and BOMP (permanent habitat loss)

● Induced impacts pertaining to illegal logging and hunting of tiger’s prey species by local communities will be mitigated through BAP actions refer to Section 7, Section 8 Section9)

● No measurable adverse effect due to small proportion of habitat being affected.

Tapanuli orangutan Illegal clearing of protect forest, hunting and killing during crop conflict as well as trade in young orangutan.


● Induced impacts pertaining to illegal logging and poaching/hunting by local communities will be mitigated through BAP actions (refer to Section 7,Section 8 Section9)


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019



● A primate-focused approach has been taken into consideration when designing the BOMP to ensure no net loss and net gain in biodiversity.

● Project will not have measurable adverse effect on population of species after the above mitigation steps have been undertaken

Agile gibbon, siamang and mitred leaf monkey

Secondary impact from conversion of forest habitat and subsequent opportunistic capture for pet trade


● Induced impacts pertaining to illegal logging and poaching/hunting by local communities will be mitigated through BAP refer to Section 7, Section 8 and Section 9). Project impacts on group present within Project area and adjacent forest are measured and evaluated as part of short and long-term monitoring

● A primate-focused approach has been taken into consideration when designing the BOMP to ensure no net loss and net gain in biodiversity.


Malayan Pangolin Targeted hunting for international trade


● Induced impacts pertaining to illegal logging and increased risk of poaching/hunting due to increased access into the forest have been mitigated through BAP actions (refer to Section 7 Section 8 and Section 9)


Reptiles and amphibians

Deforestation for reptiles and poaching for the pet trade for amphibians


● Induced impacts pertaining to deforestation and increased risk of poaching due to increased access into the forest have been mitigated through BAP actions (refer to Section 7, Section 8 and Section 9)


Birds: Helmeted hornbill

Targeted hunting for international trade, and logging & wood harvesting


● Induced impacts pertaining to deforestation and increased risk of poaching/hunting due to increased access into the forest have been mitigated through BAP actions (refer to Section 7 Section 8 and Section 9)


Plants: Dark red meranti

Logging and wood harvesting ● Direct impacts from habitat loss have been mitigated through the OnFRP (temporary habitat loss) and BOMP (permanent habitat loss)

● Induced impacts such as illegal logging due to increased access into the forest have been mitigated through BAP actions (refer to Section 7, Section 8 and Section9)


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019



● The dark red meranti has been identified as a core species to be planted during the OnFRP.


Batang Toru Forest Ecosystem (C4, C5, C7)

Habitat loss from Project ● Direct impacts from habitat loss have been mitigated through the OnFRP (temporary habitat loss) and BOMP (permanent habitat loss)

Source: Mott MacDonald,2018


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

6 Priorities for biodiversity conservation

6.1 Selection criteria

This BAP is focused on species and habitats that need special management rather than dealing

with all the biodiversity in the Project Area. As part of this BAP, the priorities for biodiversity

conservation have been selected based on:

● The global and national conservation importance and protected status of species and

habitats recorded in the Project Area. This category includes rare, restricted-range and

threatened species as identified on the IUCN Red List; species protected under Indonesian

law as well as the habitats where these species occur.

● The critical habitat trigger species that are affected by the project (see Section 5 of this BAP,

with full details in the CHA in Appendix).

● Feedback provided by PanEco-SOCP-YEL following biodiversity surveys undertaken in

November 2013, June and September 2014.

● The predicted impacts of the Sarulla Geothermal Power Project on the above features.

6.2 Priority Habitats and Species

6.2.1 Habitats

The following habitat types of high and medium conservation value have been selected as

priorities for conservation in this BAP:

● Natural forests of various types including low and tall primary forest, disturbed/secondary

forest, Kayu Arang (heath forest) and volcanic stone forest.

● Modified mixed forest with varying densities of managed rubber and benzoin trees

6.2.2 Species

The species listed below have been identified as priorities for conservation as part of this BAP.

None of these species are restricted to the Project Area; they are known or likely to occur in

other parts of the WBTFB as well as other parts of Sumatra (excluding the Tapanuli orangutan

which is restricted to the BTFE).

6.2.2.1 Plant species of conservation importance

Two plant species of conservation importance, dark red meranti (Shorea platyclados) and a

pitcher plant species (Nepenthes tobaica), were found to occur within the Project Area. See

Section 4.3 and Table 7 for further details. No other plant species of conservation importance

were recorded in the Project Area.

6.2.2.2 Mammal species of conservation importance

Six critical habitat trigger mammal species are known to occur within the Project Area. These

are: Sumatran tiger (CR), Tapanuli orangutan (CR), agile gibbon (EN), Malayan pangolin (CR),

mitred leaf monkey (EN) and siamang (EN). In addition, twelve other mammal species were

recorded which are either categorised as VU on the IUCN Red List and/or are protected under

Indonesian Law (see Table 13).


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Table 13: Threatened and protected mammal species recorded within the Batang Toru forest

Order/family Scientific name English PP No.7

IUCN Red List

Carnivora (Viverridae) Arctitis binturong Binturong X VU

Carnivora (Viverridae) Prionodon linsang Banded linsang X LC

Carnivora (Felidae) Pardofelis marmorata Marbled cat X NT

Carnivora (Ursidae) Helarctos malayanus Malayan sun bear X VU

Cervidae Rusa unicolor Sambar deer X VU

Cervidae Muntiacus muntjak Common barking deer X LC

Cervidae Capricornis sumatraensis Sumatran serow X VU


Macaca nemestrina Pig-tailed macaque VU

Primata (Lorisidae) Nycticebus coucang Slow loris X VU

Rodentia (Muridae) Maxomys whiteheadi Whitehead’s spiny rat VU

Rodentia (Sciuridae) Lariscus insignis Three-striped ground squirrel

X LC

Tragulidae Tragulus napu Greater mouse deer X LC

Source: SOL, 2013; PanEco-YEL-SOCP, 2013; 2014

6.2.2.3 Birds of conservation importance

One critical habitat trigger bird species is known to occur within the Project Area, the helmeted

hornbill (which was reclassified from NT to CR in 2016). In addition, thirteen species protected

by Indonesian law were identified within the Project Area as described in Section 4.4.

6.2.2.4 Amphibian and reptile species of conservation importance

No endangered or critically endangered amphibian or reptile species have been recorded in the

Project area. However, some species are considered as high conservation value as they are

endemic to Sumatra and live in habitat with limited coverage, like the local Kayu Arang (heath)

forests (see Section 4.6 for further details). These species are:

● Hayek’s slender agama

● Wegner’s glass lizard ● False file-eared tree frog


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

7 BAP actions

7.1 Overview

This section sets out the proposed actions to be undertaken for the habitats and species of

conservation value identified in Section 4 with the aim of achieving no net loss to biodiversity

and a net gain in critical habitats in accordance with IFC PS6 (IFC, 2012a).

These actions have been developed for each priority biodiversity feature, or groups of features,

to ensure the systematic implementation of the mitigation hierarchy i.e. avoid, reduce

(minimise), remedy (restore) and offset as outlined in Figure 2. This will allow for the careful

management of risk during construction and operation, and the best possible outcomes for the

Project and local communities without compromising the health, function and integrity of the

ecological system.

A summary of the actions is provided in Table 14 below, with details of the actions in Section

7.2.

Table 14: Summary of BAP actions

No Action

1 Inform construction and operation staff (including contractors) on the habitats of conservation value and protected and threatened plant and animal species; enforcement of no hunting or logging policy by SOL staff or contractors

2a Conduct further biodiversity surveys for mammals of conservation value.

2b Conduct further biodiversity surveys for plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds of conservation value.

2c Prepare a detailed map of habitats of conservation value.

3 Socialisation programme with local villages to promote awareness of importance of habitats and plant species of conservation value.

4 Undertake habitat restoration within laydown, disposal, borrow and former production well areas.

5 Clear demarcation of areas to be cleared during construction.

6 Prevent and reduce hunting and logging in areas opened up through the creation of new or improved access roads.

7 Prevent and reduce mortality of wildlife from collision from vehicles.

8 Light control within Project Area to minimise disturbance to forest species.

9 Methodical clearance of forested areas under ecological supervision.

10 Forest recreation outside of Project Area to offset critical and natural habitats affected by the construction of the NIL geothermal field.

11 Create primate crossing points on site access roads to ensure connectivity for arboreal mammals.

12 Prepare a long-term monitoring plan for species/habitats of High Conservation Value


7.2 BAP actions

The following section highlights the main actions required as part of the BAP. The action type

has also been identified with the according categories within the mitigation hierarchy as shown

in Figure 2.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 1: Inform construction and operation staff (including contractors) on the habitats of conservation value and protected and threatened plant and animal species; enforcement of no hunting or logging policy by SOL staff or contractors

Target: All construction and operation staff (including contractors) to be made aware of the importance of forest habitats as well as protected and threatened plants and animals within the Project Area; as well as details of the SOL site systems and regulations to protect biodiversity. All staff to be made aware of personal obligations to comply with SOL biodiversity policy which includes no hunting or logging.

Indicator: Number of staff and contractors reached through site induction and training (100%); the erection and maintenance of information posters in the Sarulla site office; site guidelines and enforcement regulations with incentives established; infringements and incidents to be recorded and monitored with corrective actions being taken.

Mitigation hierarchy:

Avoid Reduce Remedy Offset Additional actions

Start: January 2014.

End: Throughout construction and operation.

Frequency: Group training for existing staff and contractors in January and June 2014. Staff induction as well as annual refreshers for existing staff are to be conducted continuously during construction and operation.

Responsibility: HSE Manager. Delivery HSE Manager, external ecological and social consultants and NGOs.

Consultees: External ecological consultant and NGOs

Details: All construction and operational staff will be informed about the areas supporting habitats and species of conservation value, why these features are important and what activities are/are not permitted in these areas. This will include details of the SOL site systems and regulations to protect biodiversity as well as staff obligations to apply with SOL’s biodiversity procedures. Staff will be made aware that SOL operates a no-tolerance policy on illegal poaching/hunting and logging that may result in immediate termination which will be based on the applicable law/regulation. This includes all direct and indirect involvement.

Group sessions will be organised in order to train all existing staff and contractors working on the Project. The delivery method will be through a PowerPoint presentation followed by a question and answer session. Due to the large number of staffs working on the Project and the requirement to maintain continuous construction work, the on-site training will be undertaken over two events during the construction phase. The on-site training will also be conducted throughout the operation phase.

The content and delivery will be determined through consultation with the external ecological consultants, the HSE Manager and biodiversity experts/NGOs.

Following completion of the training events, all new site staff and contractors will be made aware of ecological issues via the existing site induction system. This is currently implemented through a PowerPoint presentation conducted by the HSE Manager. Additional slides will be prepared for inclusion in this presentation the external ecological consultants and biodiversity experts/NGOs. This will be implemented with fourteen days of final training event.

In addition to the training events as outlined above, awareness of the ecological issues affecting the Project and the conservation value of the Batang Toru forest will also be achieved through the placement of literature at the Sarulla site office.

Compliance with SOL biodiversity policy will be managed and monitored by the HSE Manager. This will include a procedure for reporting incidents by site staff as well as a record of training attendance (induction and annual refreshers) for all new hires, existing staff and contractors. A recording and evaluation system will be established which will be reviewed no less than on a monthly basis. Corrective measures will be taken where necessary including appropriate actions for infringements as stated in the Rewards and Punishment Procedure of BAP implementation (doc ref: SOL-HSE-037E-PR) produced in 2014 (refer to Appendix C). Depending on the severity of the breach, termination of employment may be warranted. Based on the state law, regulation no.6/1999, it is illegal to catch, harm, kill a protected species, export or move a protected species and sell or own parts of a protected species. Violation of the law will be punishable to a maximum of 5 years in jail or Rp. 100,000,000 in fines. The Rewards and Punishment Procedure of BAP implementation (as above) will incorporate termination policy of staff when charged with a criminal offence (ie hunting/logging).

Implementation: As detailed in Appendix D, Mott MacDonald and PanEco/YEL together with SOL’s Environmental Engineers delivered the Socialisation Programme to one-hundred and eleven (111) staff of SOL, Contractors, and Subcontractors as summarised in Table 15.

Table 15: Socialisation programme delivery to SOL and contractors staff

Audience Date Duration Location # of participants

SOL and Contractors senior and middle managers

5 June 2014

20min SOL Jakarta office

36

SOL and Contractors site staff and contractors

10 June 2014

1hour SOL site office 75


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 1: Inform construction and operation staff (including contractors) on the habitats of conservation value and protected and threatened plant and animal species; enforcement of no hunting or logging policy by SOL staff or contractors

TOTAL: 111

Source: Mott Macdonald

The Socialisation Programme was determined to be essential in promoting awareness of the importance of habitats of conservation value for compliance with Lenders’ safeguards to demonstrate SOL’s commitment toward ‘no net loss’ to biodiversity and ‘net gain’ in critical habitat. A further objective of the Socialisation Programme was to support SOL’s proper implementation of the BAP. Therefore, the Socialisation Programme was designed and delivered to raise awareness of the following:

● National legislative and international lenders’ requirements on biodiversity that the Project must comply with; ● Importance of biodiversity and habitats and species of conservation value and sensitivities of the Project area;

● Measures to be implemented and monitored on site as per the BAP and BOMP during the construction phase;

● Procedures to be followed in the event of non-compliance with the BAP and BOMP; and

● Roles and responsibilities of each entity and personnel.

The presentation materials used during the socialisation are provided in Appendix D including the biodiversity poster and brochure, which were distributed to all the participants.

Furthermore, SOL’s environmental team and the Site Construction Manager have developed and implemented training events since December 2013 and delivery was achieved on the 7th January 2014.

SOL will continuously improve and implement the training events to all new site staff, Contractors, and Sub-contractors to raise awareness on ecological issues and to support proper implementation of the BAP throughout the construction phase. A refresher thereafter will be arranged and delivered by SOL in coordination with the Contractors on an annual basis throughout the construction phase.

Coordination for the training events commenced in December 2013 and delivery was achieved on the 7th January 2014. Further awareness-raising was also undertaken on 5th and 10th June 2014 as part of the Biodiversity Socialisation Programme (see Mott MacDonald, 2014a). This has included presentations to SOL senior and middle management in Jakarta as well as Project site staff and contractors (Figure 6). Two posters were provided by YEL in November 2013 were erected in the office in December 2013 (see Figure 7)

Figure 6: Staff biodiversity training in January 2014

Figure 7: Ecology awareness poster erected in Sarulla site office

Source: SOL Source: PanEco/YEL/SOL


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 2a: Conduct further biodiversity surveys for mammals of conservation value.

Target: Undertake biodiversity surveys for mammal species of conservation value before construction of NIL1 and WJP1.

Indicator: Surveys to be completed prior to construction; findings to be communicated with site team and appropriate actions taken where necessary to minimise impacts.



Start: At least one month before start of construction (November 2013 for NIL1n and June 2014 for WJP1).

End: Short-term biodiversity monitoring to be completed by 2020, within the post-construction phase.

Frequency: Surveys, reporting and mapping undertaken annually between November 2013 and May until 2019. The methodology and timings to be used will be finalised by the end of February 2014.

Responsibility: External ecological consultant (coordination), NGOs/biodiversity experts (surveys).

Details: The aims of this action will be to: 1) provide more detailed pre-construction (NIL1 and WJP1) biodiversity baseline data on mammals of conservation value in the Project Area; 2) provide on-going monitoring data to assess the impacts of the Project in the surrounding habitats; 3) inform changes or additions to the mitigation measures.

The target species for the surveys are: Sumatran tiger (CR), Sumatran orangutan (CR), agile gibbon (EN), mitred leaf monkey (EN), siamang (EN), Malayan pangolin (CR) and Malayan sun bear (VU).

The surveys are undertaken by NGOs/biodiversity experts with assistance (including guides) from local villagers.

Further details of the implementation are given in Section 8 and Section 9. Further details on the survey methodology are given in Pre-construction and Short-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology (Mammals) (Mott MacDonald, 2014b).

Implementation: The surveys for NIL1, for which construction commenced in December 2013, were undertaken by PanEco-SOCP-YEL in November 2013 (see Appendix B). Surveys targeting WJP1 were undertaken in June and September 2014 prior to the start of. Key findings are summarised as follows:

● A total of 27 mammal species were encountered during the biodiversity surveys in/near the SOL project area

between November 2013 and June 2014. Of these, 11 mammal species are listed under the IUCN Red List as

Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, and 15 of these species are protected under Indonesian law

● A Sumatran Tiger (CR), scat containing pangolin scales was encountered during the recce surveys in November

2013

● Sumatran Orangutan (CR) nests (5 nests) aged 1-6 months old were encountered in June 2014 at some <2.5 km

distance from the NIL1 site and WJP location

● Pangolins (CR) were photographed at 3 locations in the SOL area

● Marbled Cat (EN) was caught on camera trap in 2 separate locations

● Density of resident Agile Gibbon (EN) groups was found to be high (17.9 ind/km2) in the SOL project area

● Siamangs (EN) were observed and 2 groups mapped during the surveys

● Mitred Leaf Monkeys (EN) were directly observed twice during the surveys

● Pig-tailed Macaques (VU) were one of the most common species caught on camera traps

● Sun Bear (VU) sign (clawmarks and feeding sign) was encountered throughout the SOL area

● Sambar Deer (VU) including several females with young were caught on camera trap on 31 independent events

● Tiger prey species (sambar, barking deer, pigs, and pig-tailed macaques) were among the most common

mammal species caught on camera trap in the area

● Hunters and dogs were caught on camera traps on 23 separate occasions

● A total of 222 plant species from 65 families were identified in the NIL area. A total of eight species from the SOL

project area are considered protected and/or endemic

For both areas no further surveys for mammals prior to construction or pre-construction mitigation are required.

Since 2014, PanEco have been undertaking annual biodiversity monitoring of mammals of conservation value within the Project Area.

Indicative Budget: Estimated costs for Actions 2a, 2b & 2c based on indicative fees proposed by PanEco for biodiversity work between November 2014 and June 2019 are €110,000


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 2b: Conduct further biodiversity surveys for plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds of conservation value.

Target: Undertake biodiversity surveys for plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds of conservation value before operation of the NIL Project Area.

Indicator: Surveys to be completed prior to operation of the NIL Project Area; findings to be communicated with site team and appropriate actions taken where necessary to minimise impacts.



Start: Before June 2015.

End: Short-term biodiversity monitoring to be completed by 2020, within the post-construction phase.

Frequency: Surveys, reporting and mapping to be undertaken over two periods: once before June 2015 (pre-construction) and once between 2017 and 2019 (post-construction).

Responsibility: External ecological consultant (coordination), NGOs/biodiversity experts (surveys).

Details: The aims of this action will be to: 1) provide more detailed pre-operation (NIL1 and WJP1) biodiversity baseline data on mammals of conservation value in the Project Area; 2) provide on-going monitoring data to assess the impacts of the Project in the surrounding habitats; 3) inform changes or additions to the mitigation measures.

The target species for the surveys are: Bronze-tailed Peacock Pheasant, Sumatran Drongo, Cream-striped Bulbul, Spot-necked bulbul, Asian Forest Tortoise, Sumatran Torrent Frog, Wegner’s Glass Lizard, White-lipped Frog, Fanged River Frog and plants (endemic, endangered or critically endangered).

The surveys will be undertaken by NGOs/biodiversity experts with assistance (including guides) from local villages.

Implementation: Results of this biodiversity surveys have been published in the PanEco/YEL Final Report of Rapid Biodiversity Survey on Birds, Plants and Amphibians/Reptiles (refer to Appendix E). Main findings highlighted by the experts are:

● Nearly 130 bird species were recorded in the PT. SOL project area. Of these, 27 are protected under Indonesian law, one species in on CITES Appendix I, nine species are on CITES Appendix II, 15 species are considered Near-Threatened by IUCN, 11 species are Range-Restricted species, and five species are endemic to Sumatra.

● A total of 31 amphibian and reptile species were recorded from the PT. SOL project area. Of these, five species are considered ‘High Conservation Species’, due to either endemism or IUCN status. A key finding is the presence of Wegner’s Glass Lizard (Dopasia [Ophisaurus] wegneri), as it was only previously known from a single contact in Bukit Tinggi, West Sumatra.

● A total of 222 plant species were identified in the PT. SOL project area. Of these, eight species are considered protected and/or endemic to the area. These species include Cyathea contaminans, Cyathea glabra, Shorea platyclados, Nepenthes albomarginata, Nepenthes tobaica, Dendrobium pulchrum, Calanthe triplicate, and Grammatophyllum speciosum.

Action 2c: Prepare a detailed map of conservation value.

Target: Obtain high resolution satellite imagery of the habitats of conservation value and prepare a detailed habitat map including biodiversity monitoring data.

Indicator: Mapping to be completed prior to construction; mapping to be updated following all biodiversity monitoring surveys; geographical information system GIS database to be set-up to record biodiversity monitoring data.



Start: November 2013.

End: For the duration of the short-term and long-term biodiversity monitoring.

Frequency: Habitat mapping to be updated following each biodiversity monitoring survey; GIS database to be updated on a continual basis.

Responsibility: External ecological consultant and NGO (initial mapping and pre-construction biodiversity surveys); SOL/HSE manager to coordinate post-construction administration of mapping updates and GIS database.

Details: Satellite mapping to 0.5m resolution to be purchased by SOL covering the entire Project Area and adjacent Batang Toru Forest. Also, additional aerial geo-referenced mapping to be provided by PanEco-SOCP-YEL following drone surveys to undertaken as part of the biodiversity surveys in November 2013. Location of site infrastructure to be provided in geo-referenced CAD format by SOL. Habitat information based on the biodiversity surveys undertaken by ERM as part of the ESIA (SOL, 2013) and a site survey undertaken by Mott MacDonald in November 2013 (Mott MacDonald, 2013).

A GIS database should be set-up following the pre-construction monitoring to store all biodiversity monitoring data. This will include sightings of wildlife by staff as well as during targeted surveys. The database will aim to share data between SOL, NGOs and external ecological consultants.

Implementation: Satellite mapping purchased and mapping completed in December 2013. Drone data surveys

completed in November 2013 and are included in the Biodiversity Monitoring Report in Appendix B. A LIDAR


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 2c: Prepare a detailed map of conservation value.

document mapping out habitats surrounding the Project area was produced in 2016 (Appendix F). An additional

ground survey was conducted in 2016 and a habitat monitoring report, comparing field survey and LiDAR data was

produced in 2017 (Appendix F). Up to date imagery was purchased in January 2018 and has been used to produce

maps supplemented by various documents.

All biodiversity monitoring data following the surveys in December 2013 and June 2014, and annually thereafter, has been uploaded onto a GIS database by PanEco-SOCP-YEL and has been made available to SOL.

Action 3: Socialisation programme with local villages to promote awareness of importance of habitats, wildlife and plant species of conservation value.

Target: To raise awareness of the local community on habitats, wildlife and plant species of conservation value within the Batang Toru forest; establish community-based management plans; and support conservation-oriented livelihood initiatives and incentive mechanisms.

Indicator: Completion of socialisation meetings with local villages in the Project Area; conservation management plans and agreements with local communities in the Project Area agreed and implemented; conservation-oriented livelihood initiatives with communities in the Project Area developed, tested and financially supported



Start: June 2014

End: End of construction

Frequency: At least one meeting with each village in Project Area

Responsibility: HSE Manager, external social consultant.

Consultees: NGOs, Ministry of Forestry.

Details: Socialisation through local community engagement will be carried out within the villages in the catchment of the Project. The aims of the events will be to: 1) raise awareness of the conservation value of the Batang Toru forest; 2) encourage local people not to hunt Threatened and protected species in the forest or to clear areas by logging; 3) raise awareness of the recent changes to the Regency Spatial Plan which has changed the status of the forest; 4) communicate developments within the Project relevant to the local communities and to agree suitable actions (for example the use of site roads for access).

The programme will be developed in cooperation with SOL, external ecological/social consultants and biodiversity experts/NGOs through correspondence and meetings. The delivery will be through presentations to SOL senior management, SOL site staff and local villages.

Long-term community-based programmes including conservation orientated initiatives will be developed. In order to determine the most appropriate approach, analysis will be undertaken of existing socio-economic data as well through surveys and discussions with local villagers to determine the key drivers behind forest use. This will then be used to propose future strategies to reduce pressure on habitats and species of conservation value; in particular those identified as priority within this BAP. Measures the programmes may include are the involvement in biodiversity monitoring as well as forest restoration.

Implementation: Due to the close proximity of communities to both the Project and forest of high conservation value, a socialization programme was determined to be essential in promoting awareness of the importance of habitats of conservation value among the local community members. Therefore, the Socialisation Programme was designed and delivered to the local communities in order to raise awareness of the following:

● National legislative and international lenders’ requirements on biodiversity that the Project must comply with; ● Importance of biodiversity and habitats and species of conservation value and sensitivities of the Project area;

and

● SOL’s commitment toward ‘no net loss’ to biodiversity and ‘net gain’ in critical habitat through implementation of the BAP and BOMP.

As detailed in Appendix D, Mott MacDonald and PanEco/YEL together with SOL’s Environmental Engineers delivered the Socialisation Programme to two-hundred and fifty-four members of local communities including the local government agencies such as Heads of Pahae Jae and Pahae Julu Sub-districts as well as Department of Mines and Energy and Department of Environment as summarised in Table 16.

Table 16: Socialisation programme delivery to local communities

Audience Date Duration Location # of participants

Local communities and Heads of Sub-district

11 June 2014 1.5hour A church in Pahae Jae Sub-district

118

12 June 2014 1.5hour A church in Pahae Julu Sub-district

126


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 3: Socialisation programme with local villages to promote awareness of importance of habitats, wildlife and plant species of conservation value.

Local government agencies

11 June 2014 1hour SOL site office 10

TOTAL: 254


The presentation materials used during the socialisation are provided in Appendix D including the biodiversity poster and brochure, which were distributed to all the participants. SOL continued to deliver further socialisation at 11 villages in the two Sub-districts of the Project’s AoI throughout the construction phase as summarised in Table 17.

Table 17: Socialisation programme delivery to local community participants in two sub-districts

Audience Date # of participants

Pahae Julu Sub-District (Kecamatan)

● Simataniari

● Lumba Jaean

● Sibaganding

● Simanampang

● Lumban Gaol

● Lumban Tonga

● Lumban Garaga

April to July 2015 519

Pahae Jae Sub-District

● Sigurung Gurung

● Siopat Bahal

● Parasaoran Nainggolan

● Pardomuan Nainggolan

September to October 2015

496

Total 1015

Source: PanEco/YEL and SOL

SOL currently conducts monthly village meetings with biodiversity as one of the topics discussed as well as

socializing in schools to give talks on biodiversity.

Action 4: Undertake habitat restoration within laydown and former production well areas.

Target: The restoration of habitats present before construction.

Indicator: The completion of restoration planting and management to ensure growth of planted species; monitoring of target species prior and following completion to determine no let loss and net gain of biodiversity.

Mitigation hierarchy: Avoid Reduce Remedy Offset Additional actions

Start: Post construction

End: Implementation to commence within one year of operations

Frequency: Planting over single period for each area; monitoring and management once every two months until planting is established.

Responsibility: SOL, external ecological consultant.

Consultees: NGOs.

Details: Approximately 25ha of different habitats (low primary, disturbed/secondary and mixed forest) within the contiguous forest boundary in the NIL Project Area will be temporarily lost during construction. These areas will be planted and managed following construction in 2018 to restore natural forest conditions to support species identified as BAP priority species (see Section 6). Small water sources (e.g. little ponds) should be created to help the survival of amphibian species (See Section 6.2.2.4).

Consultation will be undertaken with relevant stakeholders in order to determine the composition and type of planting to be achieved. Implementation will then be undertaken by a specialist restoration contractor and local villagers will be used to assist with the work as well as with future maintenance. The sites will also be incorporated into the short-term and long-term biodiversity monitoring and evaluation plan (see Section 9). Further details will be given in an On-site Forest Restoration Plan.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 4: Undertake habitat restoration within laydown and former production well areas.

In addition to the restoration of the areas of temporary loss, former well pads and existing features (ie those developed by Unocal and no longer in use by SOL) will not be affected by the development and natural regeneration will be permitted.

Implementation: The latest version of the On-site Forest Restoration Plan (Rev G) was issued in January 2019.

Indicative Budget: Estimated costs for this Action are USD 115,000.

Action 5: Clear demarcation of areas to be cleared during construction.

Target: To avoid all accidental incursion or clearance of areas outside of construction footprint.

Indicator: Geo-coordinates and mapping to be established for site demarcation; Clear markers to be used to demark construction boundary; briefing of site team to understand importance of only working with construction boundary; number and area of infringements to be monitored and reported; all infringements to be immediately rectified


Start: Prior to each construction phase.

End: Following completion of site preparation works for each construction phase.

Frequency: Once before each construction phase.

Responsibility: HSE Manager.

Details: Clear boundary markers (painted stakes) will be placed on the edge of the construction area prior the start of works. Their integrity and position will be monitored by the HSE and site manager. Construction work will be supervised within the boundaries of the markers. Infringements and corrective measures will be implemented by the HSE manager.

Implementation: This action has been implemented since the start of construction until the end of construction (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). This action is also included within the ESMP. Evidence of demarcation can also be seen in the pre-clearing survey report (see Appendix G).

Figure 8: SOL site staff setting a forest boundary near NIL1

Figure 9: SOL site staff setting a forest boundary near NIL1


Action 6: Prevent and reduce hunting and logging in areas opened up through the creation of new or improved access roads.

Target: To prevent the new site access roads being used by people to enter the forest to undertake illegal activities such as logging and the hunting of Threatened and protected species.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


Indicator: Restricted access to unauthorised people using site roads during construction and operation; restricted access barriers on site roads in habitats of conservation value following construction; voluntary procedure with local people and Sarulla on usage of site access roads.


Start: During construction and operation (prevention of non-local and unauthorised people using site roads); post construction (vehicle access control); throughout operation (security patrolling which includes monitoring for illegal hunting and logging)

End: For lifetime of Project.

Frequency: On-going.

Responsibility: Construction Manager.

Consultees: External social consultant, NGOs, local village representatives.

Details: Control measures will be put into place to reduce and/or prevent unauthorised access along the roads within the contiguous forest boundary in the NIL Project Area. This will be adapted to specific areas of the site as some of the Project infrastructure has been constructed on existing roads where local people already access rights. It will not be practical to prevent access on foot; however, where access will be restricted this will include either the exclusion of all vehicles and/or four-wheeled vehicles only. Details will be given in a Site Access Plan and relevant combined actions will also be incorporated into the socialisation program and BOMP.

Where limited access is permitted a voluntary procedure will be put into place between SOL and local villagers. This will place conditions on activities which will or will not be permitted on SOL owned and managed roads. This procedure will be developed by SOL in conjunction with external social consultants and NGOs (who have previous experience in this area) before being finalised with local village representatives. The final delivery will be through appropriate methods to communicate with the local villagers. This is considered likely to be through presentations and discussion groups. This Action will be coordinated with Action 3 and Action 10. Details will be provided within the Biodiversity Socialisation Programme and Off-site Forest Recreation Plan.

Implementation: This process has commenced in July 2014. Details are given in the Project’s Site Access Plan (Mott MacDonald, 2014), Access Control Procedure (SOL, 2018) and Security Management Plan (SOL, 2018). Relevant combined actions have also been incorporated into the socialisation program. Actions taken by SOL are briefly summarised below:

● A new guard house has been constructed at the NIL-3o road entrance as the main gate to the NIL area, which is staffed 24 hours. This security post restricts access of the local community to the Project area (refer to Figure 10).

● A list of local farmers and land owners inside the NIL area is maintained at the main gate with only those individuals allowed to access the NIL area

● Existing land owners/users have been provided with identification (ID) cards (Figure 11)

● SOL has conducted biodiversity and forest protection awareness with these land owners and farmers

● Barrier gates have been constructed at the road entrance of NIL-1n, NIL-2o and WJP-1n to prevent unauthorised vehicle access (see Figure 13) as well as signages installed around the Project site to indicate no entry into the forest to log.

● Guard houses and gantries for all access roads were completed: WJP in 2017, NIL1, NIL2 and NIL Main access post in 2018.

● Equipment checks are being conducted when villagers with valid ID enter the Project area to access their farmland. Any hunting or logging equipment will be confiscated when found.

● SOL regularly coordinate and conduct patrols independently and jointly with the Forestry Department, to identify and report illegal logging and forest clearing activities within the lease hold area (Figure 14 and Figure 15).

● Patrolling is being conducted at least twice a day for an area, in particular, the around existing wellpads (ie NIL1, WJP, NIL2). Patrolling not only services the access roads but also covers 100m into the surrounding forest to look for signs of illegal logging and hunting activity (ie snares, gunshells, etc). Patrolling will be continued throughout operations for the lifespan of the Project. A sample of the patrolling report can be seen in Appendix H.

● Upon the observation of any illegal activity (poaching/hunting and logging signs), reports will be made directly to the forestry and police department (refer to Appendix I).

● No access for cars, trucks or motorcycles not relating to the Project are allowed into areas earmarked to be solely for Project use (ie where there are no community areas – eg WJP-1n) to reduce hunting and logging possibilities.

Figure 10: Main gate (NIL-3o) Figure 11: ID card for farmer/land owner


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


Source: SOL, 2018 Source: SOL, 2018

Figure 12: Example list of local farmer/land owners within the NIL area

Figure 13: Barrier gate to NIL-2o


Figure 14: Illegal logging observed during SOL-Government joint patrol conducted in November 2015

Figure 15: Discussions between SOL and government joint patrol conducted in November 2015



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 7: Prevent and reduce mortality of wildlife from collision from vehicles.

Target: To prevent accidental collision of site vehicles with wildlife on site roads.

Indicator: Site surveys undertaken and monitoring systems established to identify wildlife movement patterns and response measures; the enforcement of speed limits along site roads to 30km/h through staff training and road signs; the introduction of speed calming measures; establishment of an incident reporting response system; the establishment of a database to record number and type of wildlife injured or killed.


Start: During construction.




Details: Speed reduction measures will be introduced along site roads within the contiguous forest boundary. This will include speed limits and/or speed calming measures as well as training for all staff through induction briefings. The responsibility for enforcement will be through the HSE Manager and implemented through delegated site team staff.

Site surveys will be undertaken daily by an ecologist during site clearance activities to monitor wildlife movements. These surveys will aim to determine habitually used corridors and to identify higher risk crossing points along the access roads for which targeted mitigation should be implemented. This could include under- and over-passes.

An incident reporting mechanism will be introduced to record injured or killed wildlife including inclusion on a GIS database. Non-compliance will be reported to the HSE manager and appropriate disciplinary procedures applied in accordance with SOL biodiversity policy.

Implementation: Speed limit signs (30km/h) have been erected across the entire Project site (see Figure 16 and Figure 17). Training on speed limits is included in all site staff inductions. Enforcement is being overseen by the HSE Manager. This action is also included within the ESMP. Details of the daily ecological site surveys are given in the Project’s Method Statement for Site Clearance (Appendix J) and the pre-clearing survey biodiversity report (Appendix G)

Figure 16: Speed limit near the Hamilton bridge Figure 17: Speed limit installed by SOL staff


Action 8: Light control within Project Area to minimise disturbance to forest species.

Target: To prevent disturbance of forest species within the Project Area from light spill during construction and operation.

Indicator: Night working during construction to be minimised where possible; direction lighting to be used to illuminate working areas only; lighting of operational areas only when personnel are present.


Start: During construction (night working); Post-construction (illumination of operational areas).




Consultees: External ecological consultant.

Details: No night working will be undertaken during construction or operation unless under exceptional circumstances (this does not include drilling activities at WJP1 and the other well pads where manned 24 hour activities are unavoidable during construction). Where lighting is to be used all lights will be directed away from the forest and will only illuminate the works areas only in order minimise disturbance to forest species. During operation


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Action 8: Light control within Project Area to minimise disturbance to forest species.

lighting will be left on overnight unless personnel are present. Responsibility and monitoring of compliance for this action will be through the HSE manager.

Implementation: This action was agreed with the SOL site manager in December 2013. This action is also included within the ESMP.

Action 9: Methodical clearance of forested areas under ecological supervision.

Target: To prevent clearance of habitats of conversation value resulting in isolation of wildlife from escape.

Indicator: Ecologist present during site clearance; monitoring survey to be undertaken by ecologist no more than 48 hours prior start of briefing of site clearance works; reconnaissance surveys to be undertaken daily in advance of the construction team; response strategy to be developed by ecologist with site team to avoid killing or injuring of priority species.


Start: During clearance of habitats of conservation value

End: For duration of site clearance

Frequency: On-going during periods of site clearance.



Details: To avoid preventable harm to species present within the habitats to be cleared in the contiguous forest boundary, ecological supervision will be provided to monitor the clearance works. This will be undertaken no more than 48 hours prior to, as well as during, site clearance activities. Where species of conservation value are identified appropriate measures (as determined by the ecologist) to ensure they have dispersed from the area will be undertaken. This may include the temporary suspension of work until the species has moved from the site into the adjacent forest areas. The site clearance team will work under a method statement in order that vegetation is cleared in a way to avoid isolating areas of vegetation and inhibiting safe means of escape.

In addition to this work, the ecologist will also undertake general site reconnaissance surveys on a daily basis during site clearance. These surveys will provide additional advance warning of the presence of species of conservation value as well as monitoring wildlife movements as outlined in Action 7. If large trees, in particular the Dark Red Meranti (Shorea platyclados) are detected inside the cleared area, their size and location should be reported by the site Ecologist. If their clearance is unavoidable, seed should be collected and delivered to the contractor in charge of the forest restoration, to be planted in the areas being reforested.

If forest clearing is anticipated to be undertaken in Kayu Arang (Heath) Forest, as these areas include several protected and restricted range species, an intensive site walk will be performed by the site Ecologist and protected/rare species should be relocated in safe area, whenever possible.

Implementation: A method statement for the methodical site vegetation clearance was issued by SOL in January 2014 (refer to Appendix J) This has been updated in July 2014 following the appointment of an ecologist to oversee the clearance of WJP1 and associated access road.

Action 10: Forest recreation outside of Project Area to offset critical and natural habitats affected by the construction of the NIL geothermal field.

Target: To develop and implement a comprehensive biodiversity offset plan within the Project Area and adjacent Batang Toru forest to achieve a net gain for priority habitats, species and ecosystem function; design off-set to complement local people’s use of the forest and cultural values associated with biodiversity.

Indicator: The preparation and implementation of a comprehensive biodiversity offset design, with habitat and species off-sets targeting the adjacent Batang Toru forest; participatory preparation of a conservation management plan for the adjacent Batang Toru protection forest; support capacity development and establishment of enforcement mechanisms for the Batang Toru protection forest; the completion of recreation planting and management to ensure growth of planted species; monitoring of target species prior and following completion to ensure no let loss for natural habitat and net gain for critical habitat; support species specific conservation measures; establishment of long-term financial support arrangements for the implementation of biodiversity conservation measures.


Start: During clearance of habitats of conservation value

End: Throughout Project lifetime

Frequency: On-going during periods of site clearance.

Responsibility: SOL, external ecological consultant.

Consultees: NGOs, Ministry of Forestry.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


Details: In order to provide a net positive gain for critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and endemic species and no net loss of other BAP species, offsite habitat recreation is required for the 44ha of permanent habitat loss and residual impacts of the 25ha of temporary habitat loss within the NIL Project Area. These areas will be planted and managed to provide replacement and additional habitat for the priority species identified in Section 6. The area of habitats to be recreated will be determined by the existing quality of those habitats to be used and their geographic location in relation to the Project. The design and implementation of the offsetting is detailed in a separate BOMP (Mott MacDonald 2018), which is a stand-alone supplementary document to the BAP. The recreated habitats should be located in contiguous habitat to existing populations of priority species to allow natural re-colonisation. Baseline and monitoring surveys will be undertaken to measure and evaluate the gains to priority species.

The design of the BOMP follows recognised guidance on offsetting, in particular that given by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) within the Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook (BBOP, 2012). This comprises eight general steps which are outlined in Figure 19 below. The BOMP has been developed through consultation with the local government authorities (eg Ministry of Forestry) and biodiversity experts. Updates to the BOMP to finalise the offset design are pending receipt of additional documentation and information pertaining to the preferred offset site.

The offset plan is a participatory process with local people being included in the design and implementation as far as

possible. The final plan will also include a conservation management plan for the recreated forest as well supporting

capacity development and enforcement mechanisms for the adjacent forest to the Project Area.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


Figure 18: Summary of biodiversity off-set design process (BBOP, 2012).

Source: BBOP, 2012

Implementation: In June 2014 SOL made initial contact with a local NGO in forest rehabilitation to provide a proposal to recreate forest within the Batang Toru Forest as part of the off-setting programme. The preparation of the Off-site Forest Recreation Plan commenced in September 2014, the document has since been revised and updated. It is now known as the Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (BOMP). The BOMP is currently being revised and updated at the time of writing this BAP. Its implementation is likely to commence in the third quarter of 2019. The BOMP outlines measures to be undertaken to offset the loss of habitats for priority species identified in Section 6. This includes areas of permanent habitat loss as well as residual impacts (following restoration) of those temporarily lost during construction.

The Project’s BOMP has followed the habitat hectare approach (McCarthy et al., 2004); this takes account of components such as habitat condition, habitat type and area of affected habitat to calculate the offset extent required. The habitat hectare approach provides a proxy measure of the biodiversity at each impacted site and offset site, this also gives a range of options for offsetting areas of varying habitat conditions as based on an aggregated habitat hectare score.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


In addition to the habitat hectares, primate-focussed6 metrics have been developed (also described further within the BOMP) which will enable quantification of not net loss/net gain for three of the priority primate species; namely, the Tapanuli orangutan (CR), siamang (EN) and the agile gibbon (EN). Existing biodiversity monitoring7 which has been undertaken in accordance with Action 2 of this BAP provides the baseline information on the status of these species within the Project area to inform the metrics.

The gain in biodiversity value from offset sites is calculated based on the projected outcome of positive interventions and good management practices, with no degradation of offsite habitats. Biodiversity monitoring for primate species will be conducted at the offset site by an external ecological consultant. Monitoring of the biodiversity through proxy indicators (see section 8 and section 9.3 within the selected offset locations will be undertaken to determine future trends of non-primate priority species. If declining populations of non-primate priority species are observed, an in-depth review will be triggered which may result in the inclusion of an offsetting metric for the species in question.

Biodiversity monitoring (ie primate and habitat focussed) conducted at the offset sites will be supplemented by on-going primate population census conducted by NGOs. The reports will be reviewed and assessed by the external ecological consultants to establish no biodiversity net loss and net gain. Details of scheduled biodiversity monitoring at the offset site will be described in the BOMP.

Indicative Budget: The estimated cost for this Action is USD 100,000 per year for the offsetting implementation contractor, and a further USD 50,000 for third party monitoring of the success of the programme.

Action 11: Create primate crossing points on site access roads to ensure connectivity for arboreal priority mammals.

Target: To maintain habitat connectivity along access roads to WJP1.

Indicator: Design and build connective bridges at canopy height to permit movement of arboreal species across access roads; monitoring and maintenance system for arboreal crossings.



Start: Prior to construction of site access road to WJP1.

End: End of construction of site access roads.

Frequency: Prior to the construction of site access roads WJP1.

Responsibility: SOL.


Details: The design and build of the access roads will be undertaken to include construction of arboreal bridges to allow movement of canopy dwelling primates. Consultation will be undertaken with external ecological consultants, biodiversity experts and/or NGOs on the most appropriate design which also takes into consideration Project technical and safety requirements.

An appropriate monitoring and maintenance programme will be introduced to ensure that the arboreal bridges are retained in good functional condition. Inspections will take place at no less than six month intervals.

Implementation: A primate crossing was designed (see Figure 19) and installed above site access road to WJP1 (see Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22.)

6 Based on current information derived from the biodiversity monitoring reports, the findings for non-primate priority species are

insufficient to derive meaningful metrics due to the low numbers of sightings. Primate sightings have been consistent and provide the best option for a meaningful metric to be developed as there are no residual impacts reported in the previous two years of monitoring surveys, although further consultation may be required with the biodiversity monitoring consultant to discuss trends in the data.

7 These comprise of primate and camera trapping surveys carried out by PanEco in 2013/14, 2016 and 2017.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


Figure 19: Primate crossing bridge design

Source: SOLs

Figure 20: Primate crossing bridge

Source: SOL

Figure 21: Primate crossing from camera trap

Source: PanEco/YEL and SOL

Images from camera traps installed have captured the Mitred leaf monkeys utilising the primate crossing (see Figure 22).


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


Figure 22: Mitred leaf monkeys utilising the primate crossing

Source: PanEco/YEL

Action 12: Prepare a long-term monitoring plan for species/habitats of High Conservation Value

Target: To undertake biodiversity and mitigation monitoring surveys for plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds of conservation value during operations of the NIL Project area.

Indicator: Regular surveys to be completed throughout operations; findings to be communicated with site team and appropriate actions taken where necessary to minimise impacts.



Start: Year 5 of post-construction in 2021.

End: End of operations in 2039.

Frequency: To be conducted for a minimum period of twenty years. Year 5 (2021), Year 8 (2024), Year 13 (2029) Year 18 (2034) and Year 23 (2039) of post-construction [1]

Responsibility: External ecological consultant or NGOs/biodiversity experts

Details: The priority species identified in the preliminary biodiversity surveys (Actions 2a and 2b) will continue to be

surveyed to monitor changes in their presence, distribution and relative abundance, both within the Project area and

offset area(s) following previously used techniques. Results from the current short-term monitoring will be used to

inform the long-term monitoring plan, which will include any change in species presence or abundance. The long-

term monitoring plan will include monitoring requirements and parameters as detailed in the BAP, OnFRP and

BOMP.

The survey data for Tapanuli orangutan, agile gibbon and siamang are to be used as part of the metrics required to

demonstrate no net loss/net gain for these species; whilst, habitat condition monitoring of the offset area(s) will be

used as proxies for the remaining priority species in conjunction with a semi-quantitative assessment of the other

monitoring results (ie direct observations, field signs and camera trapping). Botanical surveys are to be undertaken

as part of the mitigation monitoring of the areas restored as part of the OnFRP; in addition, monitoring for illegal

logging will be carried out through satellite imagery to identify any induced habitat conversion.

Details of long-term monitoring focus can be seen in Table 20 and it is to be reviewed and updated upon the

completion of short-term monitoring in 2019.

Implementation: This action was agreed with SOL and the long-term monitoring plan will be developed by SOL and an external ecological consultant.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

8 Biodiversity No Net Loss/Net Gain

The aim of the BAP/BOMP is to ensure that the Project implements the mitigation hierarchy

presented in the ESIA; complies with national legislation/policy requirements; and complies with

international environmental requirements and best practice, including the Asian Development

Bank (ADB) Safeguards Policy Statement 2009, International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Performance Standard 6 (PS6), and the Equator Principles. The overall goal is to achieve a net

gain for triggers of Critical Habitat as defined by the IFC PS6 assessment process as well as no

net loss of natural habitats and other priority species.

The forest within the NIL Project Area has been identified as a priority within the BAP as well as

species of conservation importance including the following which trigger critical habitat

requirements:

● Mammals:

– Sumatran tiger (CR)

– Tapanuli orangutan (CR)

– Agile gibbon (EN)

– Siamang (EN)

– Mitred leaf monkey (EN)

– Malayan pangolin (CR)

● Amphibians and reptiles:

– False file-eared treefrog (endemic to Sumatra)

– Wegner's glass lizard (endemic to Sumatra)

– Hayek's slender agama (endemic to Sumatra)

● Birds

– Helmeted hornbill (CR)

● Plants:

– Dark red meranti (EN)

– Pitcher plants (endemic to Sumatra)

A total of twelve actions have been outlined in section 7.2 in order to avoid, reduce, mitigate and

offset to achieve no net loss to biodiversity and a net gain in critical habitats in accordance with

IFC PS6 and ADB lender requirements. The BAP addresses direct and induced impacts of the

Project as well as actions that have been taken to reduce these impacts (ie through avoid and

reduce). The proposed actions to be undertaken for the habitats and species of conservation

value identified in Section 4 with the aim of achieving no net loss to biodiversity have been

addressed within the BAP actions.

Documents such as the OnFRP and BOMP have been designed to address habitats that have

been temporarily and permanently affected by the Project (ie through remedy and offset).

Temporary affected habitats will be restored in order to mitigate impacts of habitat clearance

and reduce edge effects as documented in the OnFRP. Restored areas may over time provide

natural forest conditions similar to those which currently exist within the remaining WBTFB as

well as suitable habitat for priority species identified within the BAP. Residual impacts of habitat

loss (ie following restoration) will be offset as described in the BOMP.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

The gain in biodiversity value from offset sites will be calculated based on the projected

outcome of positive interventions and good management practices, with no degradation of

offsite habitats. Therefore, the management of offset sites significantly increases the biodiversity

value that was lost due to the Project. This provides a quantitative approach to assess the

actual predicted outcome of overall biodiversity gains once the implementation details and

relevant baseline information of the selected offset site/option have been developed to a

sufficient level.

Table 18 summarises the Project impacts, mitigation (avoid, reduce and restore) and predicted

offsets gains and losses, as based on a species approach. If fully implemented the Project is

predicted to achieve an overall biodiversity gain at the end of the Project’s lifespan. Type of habitat loss and the habitat hectare breakdown pertaining to each species can be referred to in

Appendix K.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Table 18: Summary of overall biodiversity net gain

Species Current status in project area [1]

Predicted project impacts [2] [3]

Proposed mitigation [4]

Habitat Hectare (HH) gains from proposed offset site [5]

Predicted NNL/net gain

Overall predicted NNL/net gain outcome

Monitoring [6]

Sumatran tiger The two locations of the field signs found during the PanEco-YEL surveys in 2013 were within 50m and 375m respectively of WJP-1. Wide-ranging nature (males may occupy ranges up to 274km² and females up to 70km²). The Project area is therefore considered likely to partially support one Sumatran tiger. Suitable habitat: All habitat types found within the Project area

Direct impact habitat loss: 68.8ha (60.1HH) Gain position: Low impact (-)

25.1ha (6.9HH) of temporary habitat loss to be restored. Gain position: Low gain (+)

Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 53.2HH from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project.

Due to the tiger's wide-ranging habitat nature, the offsetting area in total (on and off site) will not contribute to more than one individual of tiger. (female range - 7000ha). Gain position: Low gain (+)

53.2HH minimum needed to achieve NNL for potential tiger habitat; therefore >53.2HH will be required at offset site to achieve net gain.

Net position: Low gain (+)

Predicted NNL outcome: Low gain (+)

Mitigation monitoring: survival rate and establishment of saplings; condition of existing habitats to be monitored every two years.

Biodiversity monitoring (project area): camera trapping surveys to monitoring direct observations and prey species abundance.

Proxy Indicator: increase prey species abundance Biodiversity monitoring (offset site):

Proxy indicator: Habitat condition of on-site restoration areas and offset site(s) in conjunction with qualitative assessment of other monitoring surveys.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

Induced impacts: Hunting and illegal logging by increased access There is low-level [6] induced impact to the Sumatran tiger from illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Low impact (-)

● Access controls on all new/upgraded roads;

● Daily patrolling conducted by security personal Gain position: Low gain (+)

Weekly patrols at offset site to minimise hunting/poaching of tiger prey species. This will in turn support at least one individual of tiger within the offset site. Gain position: Neutral (0)

Net position: Neutral (0)

Mitigation monitoring: Review of access control and patrol reports to ensure hunting/logging is avoided/ reduced within 100m of Project.

Tapanuli orangutan

No live encounters with orangutans were observed in 2014 survey. Five nests aged one to six months old encountered in 2014 approximately 2.5km from NIL1 and WJP location. Therefore, Project area is not considered to regularly support orangutans. Mixed forest and low primary forests are

Direct Impact habitat loss: 68.8ha (60.1HH)

Low occurrence of orangutan in Project AoI, therefore a low impact has been assigned.

Gain position: Low impact (-)

25.1ha (6.9HH) of temporary habitat loss to be restored. Gain position: Low gain (+)

Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 53.2 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project. However, potential offset sites identified in BOMP have been known to have primate presence (one of the factor in site selection) Therefore, a

53.2HH minimum needed to achieve NNL for potential orangutan habitat; therefore >53.2HH will be required at offset site to achieve net gain.

Net position: Medium gain (++)

Predicted NNL outcome: Medium gain (++)


Biodiversity monitoring (project area): Direct indicator: Increase observation of orangutan presence (Nests) and habitat condition of on-site restoration areas


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

considered less suitable as orangutan habitat. Project area population: 2

Medium gain has been assigned

Gain position: Medium gain (++)

Biodiversity monitoring (offset site):

Direct indicator: Increase observation of orangutan presence (Nests) and habitat condition of offset site(s).

Induced impacts: Reduction of orangutan habitat due to illegal logging induced by increased accessibility of access to forests by new roads. There is low-level [6] induced impact to the orangutan from illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Low impact (-)



Weekly patrols at offset site to decrease propensity of illegal logging. Gain position: Neutral (0)



Monitoring indicator: Reduced or no signs of hunting/logging activities as per incident reports


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

Agile gibbon Estimated 12 gibbon groups around Project area (refer to Appendix B) Suitable habitat: Disturbed/secondary forest and low primary forest

Direct impact habitat loss: 42.3ha (41.5HH)


25.1ha (6.9H) of temporary habitat loss to be restored. Gain position: Low gain (+)

Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 34.6 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project. However, potential offset sites identified in BOMP have been known to have primate presence (one of the factor in site selection) Therefore, a Medium gain has been assigned Gain position: Medium gain (++)

Agile gibbon needs 34.6HH to achieve species NNL. Therefore; with overall 53.2HH to be gained at the offset site, Agile gibbon will have at least 18.7 HH positive increase in potential gibbon habitat. Net position: Medium gain (++)



Biodiversity monitoring (project area): Direct indicator: Increase observation of Agile gibbon and habitat condition of on-site restoration areas


Direct indicator: Increase observation of Agile gibbon and habitat condition of offset site(s).

Induced impacts: Hunting and illegal logging by increased access There is low-level [7] induced impact to the agile gibbon from


● Daily patrolling conducted by security personal





401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Low impact (-)

Gain position: Low gain (+)


Siamang Estimated nine siamang groups around Project area (refer to Appendix B) Suitable habitat: All habitat types found within the Project area Siamang is considered more tolerant to degraded habitat than the Agile gibbon



25.1ha (6.9HH) of temporary habitat loss to be restored.


Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 53.2 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project. However, potential offset sites identified in BOMP have been known to have primate presence (one of the factor in site selection) Therefore, a Medium gain has been assigned Gain position: Medium gain (++)

53.2HH minimum needed to achieve NNL for potential siamang habitat; therefore >53.2HH will be required at offset site to achieve net gain.

Net position: Medium gain (++)



Biodiversity monitoring (project area): Direct indicator: Increase observation of siamang and habitat condition of on-site restoration areas


Direct indicator: Increase observation of siamang and habitat condition of offset site(s).

Induced impacts: Illegal

● Access controls on all

Weekly patrols at offset site to

Net position: Neutral gain (0)

Mitigation monitoring:


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

logging by increased access There is low-level induced impact [6] to the Siamang from illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Low impact (-)

new/upgraded roads


decrease propensity of illegal logging. Gain position: Neutral (0)

Review of access control and patrol reports to ensure hunting/logging is avoided/ reduced within 100m of Project.


Mitred leaf monkey

Two visual observations of Mitred leaf monkey in 2013 and 2014 (refer to Appendix B) Suitable habitat: All habitat types found within the Project area





Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 53.2 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project.

However, potential offset sites identified in BOMP have been known to have primate presence (one of the factor in site selection) Therefore, a Medium gain has been assigned. Gain position:

53.2 HH minimum needed to achieve NNL for potential Mitred leaf monkey habitat; therefore >53.2HH will be required at offset site to achieve net gain. Net Position: Medium gain (++)



Biodiversity monitoring (project area): transect surveys to monitoring direct observations. Proxy indicator: Increase observation of Tapanuli orangutan, Agile gibbon or Siamang.

Biodiversity


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

Medium gain (++)

monitoring (offset site):


Induced impacts: Illegal logging by increased access There is low-level [6] induced impact to the mitred leaf monkey from illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Low impact (-)

● Access controls on all new/upgraded road



Net position: Neutral gain (0)



Malayan pangolin

7 visual counts in 2014 biodiversity survey Suitable habitat: All habitat types found within the Project area

Direct impact: habitat loss: 68.8ha (60.1HH)




Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 53.2 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for

53.2 HH minimum needed to achieve NNL for potential pangolin habitat; therefore >53.2HH will be required at offset site to achieve net gain. Net position:




401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

this Project. High potential of increase in pangolin population at offset site if security access in place. Gain position: Medium gain (++)

Medium gain (++)




Induced impacts: Poaching/hunting and illegal logging by increased access There is high-level[6] induced impact to the pangolin from poaching/hunting by local

● Access controls on all new/upgraded roads



Net position: Low impact (-)


Monitoring indicator: Reduced or no signs of


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Medium impact (--)


hunting/logging activities as per incident reports

Helmeted hornbill

Only audio of helmeted hornbill recorded during 2014 Biodiversity survey. Suitable habitat: Low primary forest and Mixed forest

Direct impact habitat loss: 65ha (57HH)



High preference for using Shorea sp. and dark red meranti for breeding. Both species has been identified as core species which will be planted as part of the OnFRP. Gain position: Medium gain (++)

Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 50.1 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project. Assumption of restoration plan to be similar to OnFRP plant species, therefore increasing potential nesting sites for helmeted hornbill. Gain position: Medium gain (++)

Helmeted hornbill needs 50.1 HH to achieve species NNL.Therefore, with overall 53.2HH to be gained at the offset site, Helmeted hornbill will have at least 3.2HH positive increase in potential hornbill habitat Net position: High gain (+++)





Proxy indicator: Habitat condition of on-site restoration areas


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

and offset site(s) in conjunction with qualitative assessment of other monitoring surveys.

Induced impacts: Poaching/hunting and illegal logging by increased access There is high-level induced [6] impact to the Hornbill from poaching/hunting and illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest. Gain position: Medium impact (--)

● Access controls on all new/upgraded roads



Net position: Low impact (-)



Reptiles and amphibians (Wegner's glass lizard, Hayek's slender agama and False file-eared treefrog)

Low counts of herp individuals encountered during 2014 biodiversity survey (refer to Appendix B) Suitable habitats: All habitat types

Direct impact habitat loss: 68.8ha (60.1HH) Low encounters of herp individuals encountered. Therefore, low impact has been assigned.

25.1ha (6.9H) of temporary habitat loss to be restored.


Offset site not currently determined. Unable to predict gains. However, a minimum gain of 53.2 HH score from the offset option must be met to achieve overall NNL for this Project.

53.2 HH minimum needed to achieve NNL for potential herp habitat; therefore >53.2HH will be required at offset site to achieve net gain.




401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

found within the Project area


The Wegner's glass lizard is known to only found within heath forest habitat. Gain position: Low gain (+)

Net position: Low gain (+)

Biodiversity monitoring (project area): transect surveys to monitoring direct observations. Proxy indicator: Habitat condition at onsite restoration area and offset site.



Plants (Dark red meranti and Nepenthes tobaica)

Total of 14 Dark red meranti trees removed from Project site during clearance (Refer to Appendix L) Some individuals of dark red meranti and the endemic pitcher plant have been recorded in the

Direct impact: 14 Meranti trees removed from Project site.


The dark red meranti has been identified as a core species which will be planted as part of the OnFRP. Number of dark red meranti trees to be planted will be reflected in the OnFRP technical document.

Assumption of offsite restoration plan to be similar to OnFRP plant species to be planted, therefore increasing the number of Dark red meranti. Gain position: High gain (+++)

Net position: High gain (+++)

Predicted NNL outcome: High gain (+++)


Direct indicator: Survival rate and establishment of saplings;


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]

Project area close to WJP-1

Gain position: High gain (+++)

condition of existing habitats

Biodiversity monitoring (project area): Botanical surveys to monitoring direct observations.



Induced impacts: Illegal logging by increased access. There is low-level induced impact to the Dark red meranti from illegal logging by local communities from increased access to the contiguous forest.

● Access controls on all new/upgraded road


Gain position: Neutral gain (+)

Patrolling at offset site to decrease propensity of illegal logging. Gain position: Neutral (0)



Monitoring indicator: Reduced or no signs of logging activities as per incident reports


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019







Monitoring [6]


Notes: [1] Types of habitats found within the Project area as based on the CHA are: low primary forest, disturbed/secondary forest and mixed forest. [2] The direct impact habitat loss takes into account both permanent (ie area cleared for Project’s operations requirements/components) and temporary (ie only to be used during construction) loss. Please see Appendix K for details. [3] The difference in area count of habitat loss between species is due to the range of habitat types used by the particular species within the impacted Project area (eg low primary forest, mixed forest). For example, the Siamang will have a larger habitat loss relatively to the Tapanuli orangutan (which have a more selective habitat use), since it uses all habitat types. Please see Appendix K for details. [4] Further details as pertaining to the monitoring of onsite restoration are elaborated within the Project’s OnFRP. [5] The HH score required to be met by the offset site is based on the HH score of the habitat loss, minus the “gain” from onsite restoration of habitat. [6] Monitoring has been detailed in Chapter 9 which includes short- and long-term monitoring. [7] Low- or high-level induced impact has been ascertained by the information gathered from section 5.3 of the CHA (see Appendix A). This has been assessed by overall main threats to the individual species such as habitat loss for the Sumatran tiger, high threats from poaching/hunting for the Helmeted hornbill and habitat loss for the agile gibbon, siamang and mitred leaf monkey.



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

9 Biodiversity monitoring and evaluation

program

9.1 Overview

Monitoring has been and will be undertaken throughout the lifetime of the Project from pre-

construction (2013) to Year 23 of post-construction (2039). This will be carried out over two

phases (short-term and long-term monitoring) and will comprise the following to collectively

ensure no net loss and net gain is achieved:

● Biodiversity monitoring: quantitative and semi-quantitative surveys to monitor priority

species population abundance within the Project area and offset site(s).

● Mitigation monitoring: monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation

measures and management controls.

9.2 Short-term monitoring

Short-term monitoring were/will be undertaken to incorporate the pre-construction, construction

and post-construction phases (ie 2013-2019) of the Project. These surveys are categorized in

three stages:

● Stage One: Pre-construction phase

● Stage Two: Construction phase

● Stage Three: Post-construction phase8

All of the surveys were/will be undertaken or coordinated by PanEco-SOCP-YEL. Further

details of the surveys are given in Table 18 and in the Pre-construction and Short-term

Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology (Mott MacDonald, 2014b).

Table 19: Short-term monitoring surveys

Type of survey Focus Conducted

Stage one: Pre-construction phase

Reconnaissance transect survey To provide further baseline data on pre-determined ‘Target species’ and local habitat identified in the EIA.

● Create habitat and species distribution maps

● Interpreting data collected from field surveys and wider conservation objective of the Batang Toru forest

● Set up baseline to monitor potential effects of the Project

16-22 November 2013

Camera trapping and wildlife survey

● Terrestrial mammals: camera trapping for cryptic fauna (ie tiger, marbled cat, pangolin, tapir etc) and line transect survey

● Primate survey: orangutan nest survey; gibbon and siamang

November 2013 to June 2014 (pre-construction survey)

8 First year of Post-construction phase based on NIL-1 COD in October 2017 (refer to Section 1.1.2)


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Type of survey Focus Conducted

fixed call count survey and transect survey

Additional baseline survey for EIA (NIL1 and WJP1 area)

Rapid assessment of bird, reptile, amphibian and floral diversity

● Bird diversity baseline

● Reptile and amphibian baseline

● Botanical baseline

● 18 September to 1 October 2014 (Bird diversity)

● 18-30 September 2014 (reptile and amphibian)

● 18 September- 1 October 2014 (botanical)

Stage Two: Construction phase

Biodiversity monitoring 1 (camera trapping and primate surveys)

● Terrestrial mammals: line transects and camera trapping

● Primate surveys: orangutan nest survey; gibbon and siamang fixed call count survey and transect survey

March - August 2016

Stage Three: Post-construction phase


As detailed above February - August 2017


As detailed above February - August 2018

Bird diversity survey ● Comparison to previous baseline conducted

● Assessment on hunting pressures on birds

August 2018

Reptile/amphibian survey ● Monitor and assess presence on reptiles and amphibians from baseline and Project impacts

● Assess biodiversity values of reptile and amphibian values in Project area

20-20 July 2018

Botanical survey ● Monitor and assess presence flora diversity from baseline and Project impacts

● Assess flora biodiversity, vegetation analysis, aerial photographs, determination of protected plants, determination of invasive plants

July- August 2018


As detailed above To be conducted in 2019.

9.3 Long-term monitoring

Long-term monitoring will be undertaken over a minimum period of twenty years; commencing

in Year 5 of post-construction in 20219. Biodiversity monitoring within the Project area will be

coordinated with the monitoring as part of the OnFRP and BOMP. Details will be agreed with

SOL’s external ecological consultant and will be issued in a Long-term Biodiversity Monitoring:

Field Survey Methodology document.

The priority species identified in the preliminary biodiversity surveys (Actions 2a and 2b) will

continue to be surveyed to monitor changes in their presence, distribution and relative

abundance, both within the Project area and offset area(s) following previously used

techniques. The survey data for Tapanuli orangutan, agile gibbon and siamang will be used as

part of the metrics required to demonstrate no net loss/net gain for these species; whilst, habitat

9 Short-term monitoring covers pre-construction, construction and post-construction.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

condition monitoring of the offset area(s) will be used as proxies for the remaining priority

species in conjunction with a semi-quantitative assessment of the other monitoring results (ie

direct observations, field signs and camera trapping). Botanical surveys will be undertaken as

part of the mitigation monitoring of the areas restored as part of the OnFRP; in addition,

monitoring for illegal logging will be carried out through satellite imagery to identify any induced

habitat conversion.

All long-term biodiversity and mitigation monitoring to be undertaken between 2021 and 2039 is

presented in Table 20.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Table 20: Long-term monitoring

Monitoring focus Objective Type of monitoring Frequency Responsibility Reporting

Project area

Training of staff and contractors on environmental policies (refer to Action 1 of section 7.2)

Inform and train new hire, existing staff and contractors of environmental policies regarding biodiversity

Training records Upon new hire of staff and annually for existing staff and contractors.

SOL Production of annual training and evaluation records.

Illegal hunting and logging activities (refer to Action 6 of section 7.2)

To reduce hunting and logging activities by local communities from increased access into contiguous forest

Patrolling for signs of illegal hunting and logging activities

Twice a day, throughout operations phase for the lifespan of the Project

SOL Daily patrolling reports

To identify illegal logging through induced habitat conversion

Satellite imagery (identify illegal logging through induced habitat conversion)

Annually for lifespan of Project SOL Production of satellite imagery annually

Mortality from wildlife collision from vehicles (refer to Action 7 of section 7.2)

To prevent accidental collision of site vehicles with wildlife on site roads

Patrolling for signs of roadkill on site roads

Daily, throughout operations phase for the lifespan of the Project

SOL Daily patrolling report

Utilisation of primate crossing (refer to Action 11 of section 7.2)

To maintain habitat connectivity along access roads to WJP1

Primate bridge Every six months SOL Annual monitoring and maintenance report

Biodiversity Monitoring habitat presence and population trends as well as invasive species to ensure NNL/net gain in biodiversity

Mammals/primates Year 5 (2021), Year 8 (2024), Year 13 (2029) Year 18 (2034) and Year 23 (2039) of post-construction [1]

SOL/external biodiversity consultant/NGO

Single biodiversity report (all species) to be issued following each monitoring year

Assess relative abundance of birds and hunting impacts

Birds Year 5 (2021), Year 8 (2024), Year 13 (2029) Year 18 (2034) and Year 23 (2039) of post-construction [1]




401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Monitoring focus Objective Type of monitoring Frequency Responsibility Reporting

Assess eco-system stability

Amphibians/Reptiles Year 5 (2021), Year 8 (2024), Year 13 (2029) Year 18 (2034) and Year 23 (2039) of post-construction [1]



OnFRP (refer to Action 4 of section 7.2)

Soil stability To control erosion and sedimentation

Water quality-TSS Quarterly monitoring as per the Project’s existing operational environmental monitoring

External contractor as part of operations monitoring

Semi-annual reporting

Onsite restoration To keep track of forest succession and restoration progress

Land vegetation analysis Every three years after upon the completion of planting (to be tied in with Botanical/plant monitoring)

External contractor to be appointed by SOL

Botanical report

Biodiversity To assess contribution towards gains in biodiversity

Mammals/primate As per above As per above As per above

Illegal hunting and logging

To reduce risk of hunting and illegal logging within restoration areas

As per above As per above As per above As per above

Offset site (refer to Action 10 of section 7.2)

Offsite habitat condition

To keep track of forest succession and restoration progress

Land vegetation analysis To be confirmed as per the BOMP External contractor to be appointed by SOL

Land vegetation analysis report

Biodiversity To contribute towards gains in biodiversity

Biodiversity monitoring One baseline biodiversity survey to be conducted prior to restoration of Offset site.

Subsequent biodiversity schedule (primate-focused) to be confirmed as per the BOMP


As per above

Illegal hunting and logging

To reduce risk of hunting and illegal logging within restoration areas

Illegal hunting and logging: Patrolling for signs of illegal hunting and logging activities

To be confirmed as per the BOMP External contractor to be appointed by SOL

Daily patrolling reports

Illegal logging: Satellite imagery (identify illegal logging through induced habitat conversion)

Annually for lifespan of Project SOL Production of satellite imagery annually

Note: [1] First year of Post-construction phase based on NIL-1 COD in October 2017 (refer to Section 1.1.2) Source: SOL and Mott MacDonald


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

9.4 Evaluation program

Following completion of each of the biodiversity monitoring surveys the results will be evaluated

by the external ecological consultant in conjunction with the NGO and SOL. Any critically

endangered, endangered, protected and/or endemic species not previously identified in the

Project Area will be assessed under IFC PS6 criteria and included as additional priority species

within this BAP. The mitigation measures and actions included in the BAP will also be reviewed

against the results of priority species and relevant changes made where deemed necessary.

Supportive mitigation actions such as educating contractors and staff on SOL’s environmental policies, patrolling to monitor threats from illegal poaching/hunting and logging as well as

monitoring of activity on the primate crossing bridge are actions taken to minimise the risk to

biodiversity loss.

Overall actions and mitigation addressed in section 7.2 as well as long-term monitoring have

been developed to contribute towards gains in biodiversity for the Project. As shown within

short-and long-term monitoring (ie section 9.1 and 9.3), the key monitoring action for assessing

biodiversity NNL/net gain is the primate-focused surveys as well as land vegetation analysis for

both onsite forest restoration and offset site. In order to track the progress of the Project

pertaining to NNL/net gain in biodiversity, monitoring indicators as well as KPI has been

established and presented in Table 21. The progress status of each monitoring element as

indicated in Table 21 ensures the achievement of net gain for triggers of Critical Habitat as

defined by IFC PS6 assessment process as well as no net loss of natural habitats for the

lifespan of the Project.

All KPIs will be reported within SOL’s Safeguard and Social Monitoring Report (SSMR). In the

event of KPIs not being met or evidence of No Net Loss not being achieved, biodiversity

management and monitoring measures will be revised.

Table 21: Monitoring and KPI to achieve overall NNL/net gain in biodiversity for the Project

Target Monitoring Indicator KPI

Reduction of illegal poaching/hunting and logging activities

Patrolling reports from Project site (inclusive of onsite restoration areas) and offset site

Decrease in hunting/poaching signs (direct observation, snares, traps and rifle pellets)

Reduced observations and reports of hunting/poaching as well as illegal logging.

Satellite imagery (identify illegal logging through induced habitat conversion)

Signs of illegal logging through induced habitat conversion

Reduced clearing observed through satellite imagery.

Biodiversity report (primate-focused)

Poaching/hunting signs gathered during transect and camera trap survey

Reduced hunters/poachers or dogs captured in camera traps

Restoration of habitats present before construction within Project area

Vegetation analysis conducted every three years

Achievement of short- and long-term monitoring KPIs within OnFRP

Increase in habitat condition (impacted to modified)

Increase in habitat condition of offset site

Vegetation analysis to be conducted as per schedule prescribed in BOMP

Achievement of short- and long-term monitoring KPIs within BOMP

Achieve a minimum of 53.2 HH score in offset habitat condition.

Contribute to biodiversity NNL/Net gain

Biodiversity monitoring

(Primate-focused) and Vegetation analysis for Project area (inclusive of

Increase of primate observations (Orangutan, Siamang and Agile gibbon)

Achieving of all outcomes as listed above.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Target Monitoring Indicator KPI

restoration areas) and offset site.

Gain in onsite restoration and offset site to be evaluated in aggregation with above targets to determine whether no net loss and a net gain is achieved at the Project level.



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

10 Principle project staff and summary of

key actions

10.1 Responsibilities

The following principle project staff will be included in the implementation of the BAP and BOMP

actions:

10.1.1 External ecological/social consultant

Overall ecological and social coordination for the implementation of the BAP and BOMP will be

undertaken by an external ecological/social consultant. Additional support will be given for the

preparation of the ESMP, mapping and socialisation programme as well as other duties as

necessary.

10.1.2 Biodiversity consultants/NGOs

The biodiversity monitoring surveys (including design and implementation), expert stakeholder

advice and assistance with the implementation of the socialisation programme will be

undertaken by biodiversity consultants and/or NGOs.

10.1.3 SOL site construction manager

The overall responsibility of the BAP and BOMP on site will be taken by the Site Construction

Manager during construction and the Environmental Engineer during operations.

10.1.4 SOL health, safety and environment manager

The implementation of site measures will be undertaken by the Health, Safety and Environment

Manager.

10.2 Summary of key associated documents

The following documents given in Table 22 have been/will be produced to support this BAP.

Table 22: Summary of key associated documents with the BAP

Document name Produced by Issue date

Access Control Procedure SOL February 2018

Method Statement for Site Clearance SOL July 2014

Biodiversity Socialisation Programme and Delivery Report Mott MacDonald July 2014

Pre-construction and Short-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology (Mammals)

Mott MacDonald/ NGO June 2014

Short-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology (Birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants)

Mott MacDonald/ NGO November 2014

Biodiversity Socialisation: Final report PanEco/YEL and SOL November 2015

Critical Habitat Assessment (Standalone document) Mott MacDonald October 2018

On-site Forest Restoration Plan Mott MacDonald January 2019

Biodiversity Offset Management Plan [1] ERM July 2019

Long-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology External ecological consultant

2020


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Note: [1] The last revision of the BOMP issued by Mott MacDonald is Rev B, 28 September 2018. Any future iterations of the BOMP is to be delivered by ERM.



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

11 References

BBOP (2009) Biodiversity Offset Implementation Handbook. Business and Biodiversity Offsets

Programme, Washington.

BBOP (2012) Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook - Updated. Business and Biodiversity

Offsets Programme, Washington.

BirdLife International 2016. Garrulax bicolor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:

e.T22734448A95085919. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-

3.RLTS.T22734448A95085919.en. Downloaded on 09 November 2018

Buckland S.T., Plumptre A.J., Thomas L., Rexstad E.A. (2010) Design and analysis of line

transect surveys for primates. International Journal of Primatology, 31, 833-847.

CEPF (2001) Ecosystem Profile: Sumatra Forest Ecosystems of the Sundaland Biodiversity

Hotspot, Indonesia. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Available at

http://www.cepf.net/Documents/final.sundaland.briefingbook.pdf [Accessed on 5 June 2014]

Critchfield, W. B. & Little, L. (1966) Geographic distribution of pines of the World. Miscellaneous

publication no. 991, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, Washington D.C.

Duckworth, J.W., Pattanavibool, A. Newton, P. & Nguyen Van Nhuan (2008) Manis javanica. In:

IUCN (2013) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Downloaded on 16 January 2014

Galdikas, B. M. F. (1988) Orangutan diet, range, and activity at Tanjung Puting, Central Borneo.

J Mammal 9 (1): 1–35.

Geissmann, T., Nijman, V. and Dallmann, R. (2006). The fate of diurnal primates in southern

Sumatra. Gibbon Journal 2: 18-24.

Giessman, T. & Nijmann, V. (2008) Presbytis melaophos. In IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 14 January 2014.

Critchfield, William B. & Little, Elbert L. (1966) Geographic Distribution of Pines of the World.

Miscellaneous publication no. 991. U.S. Department of Agriculture & Forest Service,

Washington D.C.

HBW Alive (2014) Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Available at (on subscription)

http://www.hbw.com [Accessed on 13 May 2014]

Heyer WR. (1994). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for

Amphibians. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press Washington.

IFC (2007). Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for onshore oil and gas development.

International Finance Corporation and World Bank Group.

IFC (2012a). Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management

of Living Natural Resources. International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group.

IFC (2012b). Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of

Living Natural Resources. International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group.



http://www.cepf.net/Documents/final.sundaland.briefingbook.pdf



http://www.hbw.com/


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

IFC (2012c). Performance Standard 1. Assessment and Management of Environmental and

Social Risks and Impacts. International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. Innes, J.L.,

Koch, B. (1998). Forest biodiversity and its assessment by remote sensing. Global Ecology and

Biogeography Letters 7: 397-419.

IPIECA & OGP (2005). A guide to developing biodiversity action plans for the oil and gas sector.

Available at http://www.ipieca.org/sites/default/files/publications/baps_0.pdf [Accessed: 7

October 2012].

IUCN (2014) The IUCN Red List of Threatened species, version 2014.1. Accessed on line 20

June 2014 at http://www.iucnredlist.org

Lamounier, Y., Purnajaya and Setiabudi (1997) International Map of Vegetation and

Environmental Conditions: North Sumatra, Scale 1:1,000,000. Institut de la Carte Internationale

du Tapis Végétal and SEAMEO-BIOTROP, Toulouse and Bogor.

Linkie, M., Wibisono, H.T., Martyr, D.J. & Sunarto, S. (2008) Panthera tigris ssp. sumatrae. In:

IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Downloaded on 13 May 2014.

Lynam, A., Traeholt, C., Martyr, D., Holden, J., Kawanishi, K., van Strien, N.J. & Novarino, W

(2008) Tapirus indicus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.

<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 17 January 2014.

McCarthy, M. A., Parris, M. K., Van Der Ree, R., McDonnell, M. J., Burgman, M. A., Williams, N. S. G., McLean N., Harper, M. J., Meyer, R. Hahs, A. & Coates (2004) The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: An evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Research Report. Ecological Management and Restoration Vol 5 no. 1. 24-27

Marshall A.R., Lovett J.C., White P.C.L. (2008) Selection of line-transect for estimating the

density of group-living animals: Lessons from the primates. American Journal of Primatology,

70, 1-11.

Mazak, V. (1981) Panthera Tigris: Mammalian Species no.152, pp. 1-8. American Society of

Mammalogists.

Ministry of Forestry (2007) Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for the Sumatran Tiger

(Panthera tigris sumatrae) Indonesia 2017 – 2017.

Mott MacDonald (2014a) Biodiversity Socialisation Programme. Mott MacDonald, Singapore.

Mott MacDonald (2014b) Pre-construction and Short-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey

Methodology. Mott MacDonald, Singapore.

Mott MacDonald (2018c) Critical Habitat Assessment. Mott MacDonald, Singapore

Mott MacDonald (2018d) Biodiversity Offset Management Plan. Revision B. Mott MacDonald,

Singapore

Mott MacDonald (2018e) On-site Forest Restoration Plan (Rev F). Mott MacDonald, Singapore

Nater, A., Arora, N., Greminger, M. P., Van Schaik, C. P., Singleton, I., Wich, S. A., Fredrikkson,

G., Perwitasari-Farajallah, D. Y., Pamungkas, J. & Krützen, M. (2012) Marked Population

Structure and Recent Migration in the Critically Endangered Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo

abelii). Journal of Heredity. Accessed on line 14 May 2014 at

http://www.sumatranorangutan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Nater-et-al.-2012-Sumatran-

Orangutan-Genetics.pdf

http://www.ipieca.org/sites/default/files/publications/baps_0.pdf




http://www.sumatranorangutan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Nater-et-al.-2012-Sumatran-Orangutan-Genetics.pdf

http://www.sumatranorangutan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Nater-et-al.-2012-Sumatran-Orangutan-Genetics.pdf


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Newmont (2003) Baseline Terrestrial Ecology Survey of the Martabe Project Area, North

Sumatra Province Area, Indonesia. PT Newmont, Jakarta.

Nijman, V. & Manullang, B. (2008) Presbytis melalophos. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 16 January 2014.

O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F., Nurcahyo, A., Iqbal, A. and Rusmanto, M. (2004) Abundance

and distribution of sympatric gibbons in a threatened Sumatran rain forest. International Journal

of Primatology 25(2): 267-284.

PanEco/Yel (October 2014). Rapid Assessment of Bird, Reptile/Amphibian, and Floral Diversity.

Final Report, Biodiversity Monitoring, Stage 1.

Perbatakusuma, E. A. (2011) Conservation Values in Batang Toru Forest Range and Its Buffer

Zone. Accessed on line 15 May 2014 at

http://adriawanperbatakusuma.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/natural-resources-in-batang-toru-

forest-range-and-interrelation-with-fit-with-sustainable-rubber-production-and-conservation-

strategy

Perbatakusuma, E. A., Dewantara, B. and Wijayanto, I, W. (2011) Technical Report: Revisited

of the Batang Toru Heritage Forest. Accessed on line 10 May 2014 at

http://adriawanperbatakusuma.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/batang-toru-forest-revisited-report-

eap.pdf

Proctor, J. (1999) "Heath forests and acid soils". Botanical Journal of Scotland 51, 1-14.

Rodríguez, JP, Rodríguez-Clark, KM, Keith, DA. Barrow, EG., Benson, J., Nicholson, E. and

Wit, P. (2012). IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, S.A.P.I.EN.S. 5.2 Vol.5 / n°2 - IUCN

Commissions

Singleton, I., Wich, S.A. & Griffiths, M. 2008. Pongo abelii. In: IUCN (2013) IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 11 June 2014

SOL (2013) Chapter 1 of Volume II: Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment

(ESIA) Addendum. Available at http://www.adb.org/projects/42916-014/documents

SOL (2014) Pre-construction and Short-term Biodiversity Monitoring: Field Survey Methodology.

Sarulla Operations Limited, Jakarta.

Targian, J., Roshetko, J., Martini, E. & Ekinadata, A. (2010) NTFPs as a source of livelihood

diversification for local communities in the Batang Toru Orangutan Conservation Programme.

World Agro-forestry Centre, Indonesia.

Thiollay, J.M. (1996) The role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain forest bird

diversity in Sumatra. Conservation Biology 9: 335-353.

Tilson, R. L, K. Soemarna, W. Ramono, S. Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer (1994) The Sumatran Tiger

report: population and habitat viability analysis. Kerjasama antara Direktorat Jenderal

Perlindungan Hutadan Pelestarian Alam dengan IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group.

World Bank (1998). Guidelines for monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity projects. Global

Environment Division.

WWF (2009) Quick Facts About Sumatra. World Wildlife Fund Indonesia, Jakarta. Accessed on

line 04 June 2014 at

http://www.savesumatra.org/app/webroot/upload/factsheet/web_english.pdf


http://adriawanperbatakusuma.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/natural-resources-in-batang-toru-forest-range-and-interrelation-with-fit-with-sustainable-rubber-production-and-conservation-strategy



http://adriawanperbatakusuma.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/batang-toru-forest-revisited-report-eap.pdf

http://adriawanperbatakusuma.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/batang-toru-forest-revisited-report-eap.pdf


http://www.adb.org/projects/42916-014/documents

http://www.savesumatra.org/app/webroot/upload/factsheet/web_english.pdf


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


BAP 1: Inform construction and operation staff (including contractors) on the habitats of conservation value and protected and threatened plant and animal species; enforcement of no hunting or logging policy by SOL staff or contractors

HSE Manager. Delivery HSE Manager, external ecological and social consultants and NGOs.

● Commence: January 2014.

● Rewards and Punishment Procedure of BAP implementation document produced in 2014


BAP 2a: Conduct further biodiversity surveys for mammals of conservation value.


● Commence: November 2013 for NIL1n and June 2014 for WJP1.

● Current status: Completed in June 2014 and annually thereafter during construction and into operation. Short-term biodiversity monitoring will be completed before the end of 2019. Long-term biodiversity monitoring will be undertaken in Year 3 (2020), Year 4 (2021) and Year 5 (2022) of operations and subsequently Year 10 (2027), Year 15 (2032) and Year 20 (2037).

● The helmeted hornbill has been added into the 2018 CHA due to change in conservation status from near threatened to critically endangered as of 2016.

● The Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) population living in the Batang Toru has been reclassified as the Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) which was described as a new species in 2018. Change from Tier 2 to Tier 1 under criterion C1 as reflected in the CHA.

BAP 2b: Conduct further biodiversity surveys for plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds of conservation value (updated with the findings from the latest surveys)


● Commence: September 2014

● Current status: First report submitted in 2014. Second survey conducted during post-construction in 2018, report pending.

● No additional critical habitat trigger species found as of survey conducted in 2014, however the conservation status of some bird species has been revised by the IUCN since 2014.

BAP 2c: Prepare a detailed map of habitats of conservation value

External ecological consultant and NGO (initial mapping and pre-construction biodiversity surveys); SOL/HSE manager to coordinate post-construction administration of mapping updates and GIS database.

● Commence: November 2013

● Completed: GIS database updated, and LIDAR analysis conducted in 2016

● Drone data surveys completed in November 2013 and are included in the Biodiversity Monitoring Report

● Satellite mapping purchased, and mapping completed in December 2013

● A LIDAR study mapping out habitats surrounding the Project area was produced in 2016

● Additional ground survey conducted in 2016. A habitat monitoring report: comparing field survey and LiDAR data was produced in 2017

● Up to date satellite imagery was purchased in January 2018 and has been used to produce maps in this BAP and associated documents.

BAP 3: Socialisation programme with local villages to promote awareness of importance of habitats and plant species of conservation value

HSE Manager, external social consultant. ● Commence: June 2014

● The Socialisation Programme was designed and delivered to the local communities in order to raise awareness.



401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019


BAP 4: Undertake habitat restoration within laydown, and former production well areas

SOL, external ecological consultant. ● Commence: 2019

● Current status: Latest version of On-site forest restoration plan (OnFRP, Rev G) submitted in January 2019. Restoration will commence in 2019 in accordance with the plan.

BAP 5: Clear demarcation of areas to be cleared during construction

HSE Manager ● Commenced and completed in August 2014.

● No further pending clearance/construction of wellpads planned at the time of writing.

BAP 6: Prevent and reduce hunting and logging in areas opened up through the creation of new or improved access roads.

Construction Manager ● Commence: July 2014

● Current status:

● Site Access Plan (Mott MacDonald, 2014) prepared and being implemented. Access Control Procedure (SOL, 2018) prepared and implemented in 2018.

● Guard houses and gantries for all access roads were completed: WJP in 2017, NIL1, NIL2 and NIL Main access post in 2018

BAP 7: Prevent and reduce mortality of wildlife from collision from vehicles

HSE Manager Ongoing: speed limitation measures (erection of speed limit signs (30km/hr) across entire Project site) are being implemented.

BAP 8: Light control within Project Area to minimise disturbance to forest species

External ecological consultant Implemented as far as possible. In some areas it was not possible to limit construction works by night. No further construction pending, and the Project is now operational.

BAP 9: Methodical clearance of forested areas under ecological supervision

External ecological consultant ● Method statement produced for methodical site vegetation clearance in January 2014 and implemented for WJP1 site. Last site clearance conducted in January 2015. No additional site clearance proposed at the time of writing.

● External ecologist working on-site and producing monitoring reports. Large trees like the Dark Red Meranti was monitored by an ecologist and the number and location of these trees, was reported.

BAP 10: Forest recreation outside of Project Area to offset critical and natural habitats affected by the construction of the NIL geothermal field.

NGOs, Ministry of Forestry ● Preliminary biodiversity offset management plan (BOMP) (initial options appraisal) prepared in September 2018.

● Final BOMP to be submitted mid-2019. Implementation to commence in 2019.

BAP 11: Create primate crossing points on site access roads to ensure connectivity for arboreal mammals

External ecological consultant ● Completed in 2018. Primate crossing designed and installed across access road at WJP1.

● Primate crossing considered a success. Camera traps installed captured mitred leaf monkeys using the crossing.

● Inspections scheduled every six months.


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

Appendices

A. Critical Habitat Assessment 90

B. Biodiversity monitoring report 91

C. Rewards and Punishment Procedure of BAP Implementation 92

D. Biodiversity socialisation programme and delivery report 93

E. Rapid assessment of bird, reptile/amphibian and floral diversity 94

F. LiDAR 95

G. Pre-clearing survey report 96

H. Sample of daily patrolling report 97

I. Letter to police regarding illegal loggin onsite 98

J. Method statement for methodical site vegetation clearance 99

K. Habitat hectare breakdown per species 100

L. Number of Dark red meranti removed from Project during land-clearing 101


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

A. Critical Habitat Assessment


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

B. Biodiversity monitoring report


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

C. Rewards and Punishment Procedure of

BAP Implementation


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

D. Biodiversity socialisation programme

and delivery report


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

E. Rapid assessment of bird,

reptile/amphibian and floral diversity


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

F. LiDAR


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

G. Pre-clearing survey report


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

H. Sample of daily patrolling report


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

I. Letter to police regarding illegal loggin

onsite


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

J. Method statement for methodical site

vegetation clearance


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

K. Habitat hectare breakdown per species


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

L. Number of Dark red meranti removed

from Project during land-clearing


401814 | 3 | K | 28 March 2019

mottmac.com